Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: >>: Exceptions vs NaN/NaI



On May 29 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

The simple, reliable and useful specification is to state that such a
failure raises an exception, the implementation is required to produce
a suitable diagnostic and take appropriate action (which might involve
termination).  Vague, yes, but it makes the intent clear.  That option
is for locating errors.

Even the notion of termination is vague, when you have things like
programs calling other programs (see for instance shell scripts
and the notion of subshell, sometimes spawn in an implicit way),
compilation from within the program (like Perl's eval), plugins,
and so on.

As is the notion of exception handling.  That is precisely why it is
a bad idea to specify the details, and it is far better to make such
behaviour explicitly implementation-dependent.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.