In article <3b78e505_1@dnews> "Kristofer Skaug" <✉satserv.nl> wrote:
> What I mean here, is not that you *can't* contain exceptions (because > you *can*, by catching them early); however, exceptions are inherently > mechanisms of error propagation, and the programming style associated > with this mechanism encourages such propagation.
Exceptions are mechanisms of error *information* propagation. They do not increase error. They do not spread error. "Error propagation" is an incorrect term. They are a mechanism for transactional-style programming. Thought must be applied along with try..finally constructs to provide roll-back ability.
> In my line of business (spacecraft and ground systems), failure > detection, isolation, containment and recovery is the highest good.
> Any fault propagation is considered evil and should be constrained to > the maximum possible extent (note: I am talking about propagation of > the error *condition*, not about error *messages*).
Good. Then you shouldn't be opposed to exceptions, because exceptions is a means of propagation of error information, not an error condition.
> Writing an > exception-based program is contrary to this principle.
You are wrong.
-- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. Team JEDI: http://www.delphi-jedi.org NNQ - Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings http://web.infoave.net/~dcalhoun/nnq/nquote.html