On Tue, 7 May 2002 04:17:19 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I was just arguing that it is sometimes reasonable to use exceptions for >non-exceptional purposes on the CLR. I wasn't trying to draw any conclusions >from that about what features the CLR should or should not have. > >Note that my argument is in fact an argument *against* the feature >originally mentioned in the subject line (the double-pass >exception semantics). For Mercury, we only make use of the usual >C++/Java/etc. style of exception handling, but we need to use exceptions >in non-exceptional conditions (for commits), so we want them to be fast. >That means that for Mercury we'd rather the target platform provide an >exception handling mechanism that *doesn't* include support for resumption, >because then the underlying implementation could implement exceptions >more efficiently. > >However, I think the decision to support the Win32-style exception >handling model in the CLR was not unreasonable, given that the CLR >was intended to support a variety of languages. VB is not the only >language which uses an exception handling model that supports resumption. > >-- >Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit >The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit" >WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
Ooops, sorry - looks like I misread your post. (I'll still read the articles though :)) And no, truth be told, I don't think the decision to support the resumption model in CLR was unreasonable either - I am just trying to become well informed as to it's original motivation. Cristian
