Re: Common exception handling

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> Maybe this use of CASE should be allowed, even if we don't go all the
> way and make exceptions first-class entities in other ways.  What does
> anyone else think... would it be a worthwhile feature to propose
> adding?  Or is it just too "special" (if we added this, others would
> ask, well why shouldn't we allow CASE on a string, or a record, or a
> container, or just expand it using some user-specified relational
> operator so that we can use it for everything...)?

Right, I fully agree. Ada is overloaded with "special" features.

I prefer exceptions become a "normal" discrete type (only in the interface
of). I wished to have ranges of exceptions so that one could define a group
of related exceptions, and be able to extend such groups. This could the
first step in order to make exceptions contracted.

There is a similar important case, the type tags. Tags and exceptions have
much in common. It would be very nice to find a generic mechanism for
handling such things. That would remove a lot of "magic" from the language,
IMO.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de