From -8133077415370362287
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ed5c0a968491d47d
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ed5c0a968491d47d
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-11-12 01:14:05 PST
Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!dorm.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: C++ exception handling model
Message-ID: <1991Nov11.201209.21279@microsoft.com>
Date: 11 Nov 91 20:12:09 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.141843.6034@cc.ic.ac.uk>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Lines: 30
Xref: gmdzi comp.lang.c++:56376 comp.std.c++:1204

In article <1991Nov8.141843.6034@cc.ic.ac.uk> rb@cc.ic.ac.uk (Robin Becker) writes:
|Since exceptions are semantically quite difficult and apparently not yet
|completely standardised I would oppose a mechanism which forbids
|resumption after some error correction.  I have in mind processing of
|high priority stuff when something minor occurs i.e. we're trying to
|shut down the nuclear reactor and the fuse on the outside lighting
|blows, it seems we should safely be able to ignore the latter.
|Any comments?		Robin

This issue was considered when the ANSI-C++ committee voted on including
templates in the language definition.  MartinO, I believe wrote up a 
proposal on why resumption should be allowed as you require.  The
committee voted against resumption.

Seems to me at this point in time you are left with a number of 
[reasonable] choices:

1) Get the ANSI-C++ working papers, and see if you don't agree with the
committee decision.

2) Review the ANSI-C++ working papers, and decide if they missed something
that you can write up and make such a convincing case that you can 
get them to reverse their decision.

3) Lobby your vendor to allow resumption in their particular compiler.

4) Go program in some other language, if and when you can get a reasonable
compiler.

[I have no personal opinion on this particular matter :-]