Hello Gregory, Am Freitag, den 06.02.2009, 00:33 -0500 schrieb Gregory Casamento: > What should "NSExceptionMask" be implemented as? SHould it be a > boolean that determines if we should allow the application to continue > or not?
Did you read the link that Richard provided? http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/Exceptions/Exceptions.html http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/Exceptions/Tasks/ControllingAppResponse.html Table 1 Exception-handling constants and defaults values: Type of Action / Constant / Value for defaults ---------------------------------------------- Log uncaught NSExceptions / NSLogUncaughtExceptionMask / 1 Handle uncaught NSExceptions / NSHandleUncaughtExceptionMask / 2 Log system-level exceptions / NSLogUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 4 Handle system-level exceptions / NSHandleUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 8 Log runtime errors / NSLogUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 16 Handle runtime errors / NSHandleUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 32 > That is to say > * NSExceptionMask = YES - report all exceptions, but continue > anyway... > * NSExceptionMask = NO - current behavior That would be a GNUstep extension and in my view more confusing than the current behavior. > If so, I have a patch almost ready. I'll submit it to the group prior > to committing it since a change that is this important needs to have > some amount of consensus. That's good. Yet I must admit that I find it a bit unsettling that DBModeler (who's eomodeld files are comparatively trivial) may abort while GORM (who's gorm/nib files contain very complex relationships) my silently corrupt it's files due to bugs in third party palettes. I just want you to consider this very carefully with respect to the default setting of GORM. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev