Path: news.cs.au.dk!news.net.uni-c.dk!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!skynet.be!poster!not-for-mail From: Atle Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Re: Static vs. dynamic exceptions Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:10:13 -0100 Organization: Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Lines: 19 Message-ID: <394F9765.21D28D31@skynet.be> References: <20000619173848.8485.qmail@noatun.mjolner.dk> <8im02p$8s5j$1@xinwen.cs.au.dk> <8infta$9jn7$1@xinwen.cs.au.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup237.charleroi.skynet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news1.skynet.be 961506333 18654 195.238.7.237 (20 Jun 2000 13:05:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2000 13:05:33 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:12457 Peter von der Ahé wrote: > > Lets say that we have the well known exception pattern and a try > pattern. Normally when an uncaught/unbound static exception occurs we > end up with a runtime error. (In my experience most of the errors in > the Mjolner tools are unbound exceptions.) The easiest would be to do it in C, and call it as a C-routine. If the seatbelts in a car bother you, you can always take a knife and cut them off. But you would save money buying a car without seatbelts. Dynamic exceptions were not left out of Beta because there was any problems with the implementation. It was a design choice, Beta was designed to use static exceptions instead. The philosophy behind this is in the BetaBook.pdf file, chapter 16, page 239-253. I would argue that putting dynamic exceptions back in would be like cutting off the seatbelts of the car - I am now learning to like it and live with it. Just my 2 øre .... Atle