On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > > I sort of found it interesting in that it doesn't seem to jive with > > the rest of the ML module system where there is a definite > > hidden/opaque/public structure to it. > > FWIW i'm not really sure that the ability to suppress raising an > exception has any practical value, because the raising process > includes the source location of the raise thereby allowing one to > differentiate between the same exception raised multiple times, where > error codes being reused, do not (outside of a debugger). I actually see the ML solution as perfectly consistent with the rest of the module system. The type of an object has to be in scope in order for you to do anything with it. In a different language design, the way to prevent external fabrications of those exception objects would be to make the constructors visible only within the assembly. ML doesn't have that concept. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
