From Randy@rrsoftware.com Sun Nov 10 22:08:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: from inmet.camb.inmet.com by camb.inmet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA06074; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:08:02 -0500 Received: from sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us) by inmet.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28068; Sun, 10 Nov 96 22:08:22 EST Received: from janusada.msn.fullfeed.com by sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (8.7.1/) id DAA13370; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 03:05:36 GMT Received: from tallboy (192.4.87.2) by server.rrsoftware.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.80) with SMTP id ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:51:06 -0600 Received: by tallboy with Microsoft Mail id <01BBCF26.A9544640@tallboy>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:46:03 -0600 Message-Id: <01BBCF26.A9544640@tallboy> From: Randy Brukardt To: "'Robert A Duff'" , "vdelvecc@camb.inmet.com" Cc: "ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us" , "eachus@spectre.mitre.org" Subject: RE: Exceptions raised by Adjust/Finalize -- Missing case Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:46:02 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit content-length: 1226 !topic Exceptions raised by Adjust/Finalize -- Missing case !reference RM95-7.6.1(16) !reference 1996-5731.a Vince Del Vecchio 1996-10-18 !reference 1996-5736.a Vince Del Vecchio 1996-10-30 !reference 1996-5739.a Robert I. Eachus 1996-10-31 !reference 1996-5740.a Vince Del Vecchio 1996-10-31 !reference 1996-5756.a Robert A Duff 96-11-8 !from Randy Brukardt 96-11-10 <> !discussion >It seems to me that if an explicit call to Adjust or Finalize raises an >exception, it should *not* be a bounded error. The exception should >just be propagated in the normal way, as for any other call. The >exception should not be turned into Program_Error. Anybody disagree >with that? It seems what the user would expect, and it seems the >easiest to imlpement. Easiest to implement is an understatement. I would expect that for most compilers, Adjust and Finalize will be normal subprograms; all of the magic will be in the calls to them (mostly from somewhere in the runtime system). Trying to specially handle exceptions for explicit calls to the routines would require detecting the routines and making the call in some special way. That would be an awful lot of additional work for something uncommon AND counter-intuitive.