From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f260a1d9f0c280c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Common exception handling
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <88961e92-80a8-4e96-b231-9d67eca0adf5@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
  <1d1a76fa-a537-4994-9578-7c7604b26ca2@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <e475f941-5d8c-432d-ae90-c41bc8ee2990@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <e9b71aab-1f19-4602-afc7-4420ab8823e3@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <f3921f63-7e3e-409e-b346-f9a62d976f1a@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <ba811359-e5b7-4e06-90e6-479755d9d28c@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>
 <3263z19x9l0r.1bbulsb9dbwjm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <02ecfd28-f2f5-4323-962b-e75706e5a48a@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:14:10 +0200
Message-ID: <yeiqrb7l5nbc$.6rxfedy8qmir.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Aug 2008 21:14:11 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3c1e4b83.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=j\aSZH1dGPn^Y=RbYBPl4`4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3Ybc`9oc5Mb6DcDNcfSJ;bb[eIRnRBaCd<MnIhf?2Imiaag\KT702b@g?k
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7526
Date: 2008-08-26T21:14:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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