Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!nmsu!opus!ted From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: block and exit_block Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 91 14:35:27 GMT Sender: news@NMSU.Edu Distribution: comp Organization: Computing Research Lab Lines: 40 even though this is the response to an email message, i think it should be given wider circulation. Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 08:13:31 +0200 From: Michael Dahmen > why in the world do they use the names block/3 and exit_block/1? > why not the much more customary catch and throw? Maybe because they don't known or don't like LISP ... :-) isn't this a wonderful motivation for making a proposal for an iso standard? gives me shivers of awe thinking about the deliberations of that august standards body working on my behalf and on the behalf of all the other little people in the world of prolog users. i suppose that they would object to naming something unwind_protect on the same grounds. i understand doing something differently in a new language because it was done poorly before. but i have a hard time understanding a change in the name _only_ in order to be different, especially when the previous implementation worked pretty well. this all sounds pretty childish. block and exit_block sound like they refer to blocks. blocks are very commonly (from algol onward) to refer to static reference scopes, not installing handlers with dynamic extent. how about handle_exception and raise_exception, or handle_event, raise_event or any number of _descriptive_ names. -- When in doubt, take the trick. Hoyle & Hoyle (quoting Hoyle)