Path: news.cs.au.dk!news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!europa.netcrusader.net!195.238.2.15!skynet.be!poster!not-for-mail
From: Atle <trollet@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta
Subject: Re: exceptions: (atle // confused (# again #) atle)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:30:20 -0100
Organization: Belgacom Skynet SA/NV
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <394E90EC.76BDBB89@skynet.be>
References: <394E2F9C.F934A4BF@skynet.be> <yc0hfapliwo.fsf@ufleku.cs.au.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup214.charleroi.skynet.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news1.skynet.be 961439137 29250 195.238.7.214 (19 Jun 2000 18:25:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jun 2000 18:25:37 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.cs.au.dk comp.lang.beta:12444

Peter von der Ahé wrote:
>
Thanks! You did clarify it for me.
> I think that the exception mechanism in BETA is very inflexible and
> inconvenient.
Well ... I took the inverse point of view, I endorse this way.
I just needed to be sure. To me, it is important to make all program flow explicit, also 'exceptional' flow. So this is right up my
alley. I think people who grew up with bare K&R C take a different view from people who grew up with C++/Java, or?
> 
> 
> This leads me to my point:  BETA does not have exceptions.  I think
> the most needed language feature in BETA is exceptions.  Alternatively
> closures could be implemented properly, that is allow:
> 
> p: (# closure:@(# do leave p #)
>     exit closure[]
>     #)
> c:^object;
> do
>    p -> c; c;
> 
> This could be used to implement proper exceptions in BETA.
Now you're talking! Thanks!

Atle