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.
Later, David Cuny wrote:
>If you decide that you *need* to have error codes, I guess it is an issue.
>But what use would they be?
...
>The purpose of the crash_routine is to shut down the application gracefully.
while earlier, Ralf had written:
>I also know tons of places where even continueing would be a great feature.
and Pete Eberlein:
>It would be absolutely essential to have the crash routine be able to do
>anything necessary to restore the graphics mode, save data to a backup file,
>or restore keyboard handlers. The crash routine must be able to access all
>variables and call any other routines within scope.
and finally, Kat:
>Seems to me it's simple, what to do next depends on what the error handler
>tells the program to do. Any error prior to the end of the error handler
>means the execution passes on to the next error handler in the chain. If the
>an error is not processed by a handler, it drops to the next handler too.
Hmmm...
Help, help, I'm sinking!
(j/k everyone)
Rod
