Xref: utzoo gnu.g++.help:150 comp.lang.c++:10450
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!boulder!grunwald
From: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald)
Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Incompatible changes in C++
Message-ID: <30021@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 90 00:03:43 GMT
References: <9011171750.AA29372@mole.ai.mit.edu> <11635@alice.att.com>
	<1990Nov19.195128.18538@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: foobar.colorado.edu
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 19 Nov 90 19:51:28 GMT

>>>>> On 19 Nov 90 19:51:28 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:
	...
HS> What concerns me is exception handling.  The article I was originally
HS> responding to had a distinct air of "we're going to standardize something
HS> like Bjarne's proposal; if we don't like it, we'll tinker with it until
HS> we do".  This is why I hoisted storm warnings. :-)  I'm not convinced
HS> that this feature has had enough implementation and use in C++ to be a
HS> legitimate candidate for standardization at all -- confidence in the people
HS> who designed it is not a substitute for real experience -- and committee
HS> modifications to it are an invitation to disaster.  Storm warnings don't
HS> mean that your house *will* blow down; they just denote cause for concern.
HS> -- 
--

However, one would assume that other languages (Clu, Ada, Lisp, Mesa,
Module-2+ and Modula-3) have had exception handling, some of them for
years. Certain the design rational of those languages could be applied
to C++?