Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!"Michael_M_Cashen.SBDERX"
From: "Michael_M_Cashen.SBDERX"@XEROX.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Exception handling anyone?
Message-ID: <870209-030729-5296@Xerox>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 06:05:56 EST
Article-I.D.: Xerox.870209-030729-5296
Posted: Mon Feb  9 06:05:56 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 06:41:46 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 31

Ref:

Could we get a discussion going on exception handling in Modula-2? The
lack
of a defined exception handling mechanism in the language is, in my
opinion,
a serious flaw in the language. Rather like a flaw in a diamond.
If there is a reason why exception handling was left out of Modula-2 I'd
like to hear that too

Bob,
        Correct me if I am wrong but from my observations of Modula-2, I
think the reason why explicit exception handling mechanisms do not exist
is mainly because it was designed under the auspice of "Structured
Programming".  This consists mechanisms such as iteration, sequence and
decision but also includes recommendations on functionality such as
"Single input, single output" (i.e. lowest level of functionality for
any given procedure) structures such as the infamous GOTO statements for
induced flow control are  not recommended (other than exiting from long
loops, etc.)  In my opinion then, I consider that given the above
criteria it would not be pertinent for the famed designer of modula 2 (a
strong advocate of structured techniques) to introduce  the digressive
mechanisms of exception handlers, which in some instances actually
include such things as GOTO statements. ( A major bottom smackable
offence in some quarters).
  Then again I may be completely wrong on this subject, so I await
confirmation or will stand corrected. 

IF Modula_2 AND exception_Handlers  THEN  Ada  OR  Mesa;

Mike  GOTO Bob IF NOT Finished  ELSE Mike; RETRY;