1. Re: crash_message
Gabriel Boehme wrote:
> Interesting. Nobody seems to want to respond to the
> points I raised earlier. Well, I suppose it's a lot
> easier to argue nebulous conceptual ideas than it is
> to actually come up with specific, detailed solutions
> about how this idea could work within the language.
In reference to:
> So, if we want to add this ability to the language,
> we'd better come up with a good way of dealing with
> error codes.
and:
> if we *do* add handling for specific error codes,
> and we *do* want to somehow continue running, how
> do we re-enter the program?
If you decide that you *need* to have error codes, I guess it is an issue.
But what use would they be?
Error codes are only really useful if you trying to recover from an error.
The purpose of the crash_routine is to shut down the application gracefully.
This means doing things like saving files, or resetting pointers. Knowing
that there was a division by zero error, type check error doesn't really
seem like useful information.
In previous discussions, the Euphoria seems to be dead-set against
restarting the program after an error was detected. I don't have the
inclination to take up the debate.
-- David Cuny
