Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!ncar!gatech!udel!princeton!phoenix!pupthy2!lgy
From: lgy@pupthy2.PRINCETON.EDU (Larry Yaffe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Proposal for Exceptions for C++
Message-ID: <2272@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 31 Mar 88 23:10:13 GMT
References: <8180006@eecs.nwu.edu> <2229@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <17935@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: lgy@pupthy2.PRINCETON.EDU (Larry Yaffe)
Organization: Physics Dept, Princeton Univ
Lines: 22

In article <17935@watmath.waterloo.edu> pabuhr@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Peter A. Buhr) writes:
>In article <2229@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> lgy@pupthy2.PRINCETON.EDU (Larry Yaffe) writes:
	[An example involving counting underflows]

>Now, you see, I don't consider this situation as an exception. PL/I
>handles this using ON CONDITIONS, which are not exception, but
>dynamically bound procedure calls. [More PL/I info deleted]

    I am curious about whether most people agree with this distinction
concerning the meaning of an exception.  To me, an "exception" indicates
that something exceptional happened, possibly needing some intervention
(a handler), but not necessarily something "disasterous" (i.e., requiring
major alteration in the flow of control).  From the language design
viewpoint, it seems arbitrary and unpleasant to force a distinction
between "dynamically bound procedure calls" - possibly triggered by
hardware traps - and "real" exceptions.  Other opinions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence G. Yaffe			lgy@pupthy.princeton.edu
Department of Physics			lgy@pucc.bitnet
Princeton University			...!princeton!pupthy!lgy
PO Box 708, Princeton NJ 08544		609-452-4371 or -4400