Xref: utzoo gnu.g++.help:153 comp.lang.c++:10452
Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Incompatible changes in C++
Message-ID: <1990Nov20.062725.8109@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <9011171750.AA29372@mole.ai.mit.edu> <11635@alice.att.com> <1990Nov19.195128.18538@zoo.toronto.edu> <30021@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 06:27:25 GMT

In article <30021@boulder.Colorado.EDU> grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu writes:
>HS> What concerns me is exception handling...  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 ...
>
>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++?

The design philosophy, yes.  But *details are critical* in language design.
This is why it is so important to have *actual experience* with a feature,
in the language in question or a very close relative.  There is a big
difference between being able to say "something somewhat along these lines
ought to be workable, if we can get the details right" and being able to
say "we've proved that this exact design works".
-- 
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry