Re: M0008.02_Exception_Handling YES
Corliss, George wrote:
YES to M0008.02 Exception_Handling
Discussions at Dagstuhl this week have convinced me that I do not
care much for the concept of decorations - they are too complicated -
but I like much LESS any alternative I have yet heard.
As the motion promises, I expect further clarifying discussions. I
hope we can simplify what is described so far.
FWIW:
I believe it should be possible. As it stands, the rules for decorations are
overly-generalized. THis was intentional, since we don't yet know what is
the required list of trits, and various trits might potentially have
competing requirements. So the generality seemed appropriate at this stage.
If we are able to weed out certain trits and/or competing requirements, I
believe many simplifications can be made.
Nate
P.S. When trying to decide how to vote, people might want to remember at
this point we are not yet voting on language for the standard; just general
directions we want the standard to go.