OpenEuphoria

2. Re: exception handler

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Aug 24, 2004
• 461 views

Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> I'm ready to implement the global exception handler concept.

YEAH!!!  (First recorded suggestion in Sep 1999 by Pete Eberlein)

> This will give your program a chance to take some action
> when the Euphoria interpreter (or less common - translated code) 
> detects a run-time error. In 2.5 your program is completely parsed
> (compiled) before any execution begins, so there isn't much 
> value in being able to react to compile-time errors.

And this means that forward referencing is possible too, of course. But
that's another battle.

> The implementation of this thing probably won't be difficult,
> but I want to get the language design right.

Excellent. Fully support that approach.

> I'm assuming the following:
> 
>    * using routine id's you can specify one or more routines 
>      to receive control when a run-time error occurs. Allowing 
>      more than one routine would be useful for library writers 
>      who might want to specify a routine to clean up resources, 
>      locked files etc. for their library, independent of what 
>      the application writer wants to do in his own code.

Yes.

>    * you can't resume execution. Once the crash routine(s)
>      have finished, the program will terminate.

Probably. However some 'crashes' may be recoverable. Divide by
zero using input from an operator - you ask the operator for a
different value.

>    * by default, the most recently specified crash routine will
>      be executed first, working back to the first routine
>      specified. Maybe there will be a way to change this order.

Yes.
 
>    * your routine(s) will be called after the normal ex.err dump
>      occurs, so I guess your routine(s) could look at ex.err
>      in deciding what to do. If a second ex.err is necessary
>      while running your routines, I'll use a different file name, 
>      like ex2.err or something. If your routine(s) themselves crash, 
>      there won't be any more calls to crash routines. That's the end.

Usable. But a formal EU-defined error data passed to the routine
would be more useful - detailing reason for crash, file name, line 
number, calling stack trace(?).

> The possible uses for this have been discussed before.
> e.g. 
>    - cleaning up files and resources that won't automatically be 
>      cleaned up when the interpreter terminates your program.
> 
>    - the "classic" example of an editor that could save the
>      user's edit buffer to disk before dying.
> 
>    - a server program that could send an e-mail notification
>      with debug info (such as ex.err) when it dies unexpectedly 
>      in the middle of the night.
> 
>    - I suppose a program could effectively restart itself 
>      and keep going if a crash routine were set up that way.
> 
> Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software

Thanks Robert. But will this significantly slow down the delivery of 2.5?
I know this enhancement is essential for quality commercial software 
development, but maybe it can be added to 2.5.1, during which time
we can shake out any issues with the whatever is currently in 2.5?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

4. Re: exception handler

• Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Aug 24, 2004
• 444 views

Patrick Barnes wrote:

> If it's a handler, shouldn't it be able to continue (Definition)?
> Maybe it should have a different name if it can't resume.... crash
> cleanup?

My thoughts exactly. It isn't an exception handler if it can't handle 
exceptions. Maybe "airbag" would be more appropriate (when you crash, 
it does less damage;)

Anyway, as has been mentioned before, the type() routine could be 
extended in such a way as to allow handling many errors, simply by 
returning to the top of a program block marked by a 'catch' or 
'try' keyword.

type file(object x)
   if x =-1 then 
      msgbox("Cannot open file")
      return FALSE
   else return TRUE
 end type

 file fn
 object fname

 try
   puts(1,"Enter a file name here:")
   fname = gets(0)
   fn = open(fname,"r")
 end try

Irv

6. Re: exception handler

• Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Aug 24, 2004
• 458 views

irv mullins wrote:

> Anyway, as has been mentioned before, the type() routine could be 
> extended in such a way as to allow handling many errors, simply by 
> returning to the top of a program block marked by a 'catch' or 
> 'try' keyword.
> 
> }}}
<eucode>
>  type file(object x)
>    if x =-1 then 
>       msgbox("Cannot open file")
>       return FALSE
>    else return TRUE
>  end type
> 
>  file fn
>  object fname
> 
>  try
>    puts(1,"Enter a file name here:")
>    fname = gets(0)
>    fn = open(fname,"r")
>  end try
> </eucode>
{{{


To follow up, I think this could be added without breaking any code.
As it stands, if the type() check fails, the program quits. If it 
succeeds, then the assignment is made and program flow continues.

A new keyword, "try", would patch into type()'s failure routine, 
and cause execution to resume at the top of the "try" loop. 

If there was no "try" in effect, then 
the type() check would act just as it does now, either make a valid 
assignment, or crash. 

Irv

8. Re: exception handler

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Aug 24, 2004
• 458 views
• Last edited Aug 25, 2004

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:48:04 -0700, irv mullins
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:

Why restrict this to types?
>
>A new keyword, "try", would patch into type()'s failure routine, 
>and cause execution to resume at the top of the "try" loop. 
>
It should be the *end* of the try block, or some explicit code as in a
try/catch/end try statement. This makes it much clearer where to put
code to check what failed, eg:

	try
		fail=1
		open(...
		fail=2
		getc(...
		fail=3
		close(...
	catch
		if fail=1 then
		elsif fail=2 then
	end try

Of course if you use three try blocks, you don't need a fail variable.
If you want it to loop, add a loop around the try block(s).

Pete
PS The above is structured exception handling, and as I said in my
other post, Rob should get a simpler final exception handler working
first.

10. Re: exception handler

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com> Aug 24, 2004
• 462 views
• Last edited Aug 25, 2004

irv mullins wrote:
> 
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> 
> > It should be the *end* of the try block, or some explicit code as in a
> > try/catch/end try statement. This makes it much clearer where to put
> > code to check what failed, eg:
> > 
> > 	try
> > 		fail=1
> > 		open(...
> > 		fail=2
> > 		getc(...
> > 		fail=3
> > 		close(...
> > 	catch
> > 		if fail=1 then
> > 		elsif fail=2 then
> > 	end try
> > 
> > Of course if you use three try blocks, you don't need a fail variable.
> > If you want it to loop, add a loop around the try block(s).
> > 
> > Pete
> > PS The above is structured exception handling, and as I said in my
> > other post, Rob should get a simpler final exception handler working
> > first.
> 
> I see it's structured. I can also see there's no way to go back and 
> try again if it fails. Suppose the open(... fails. 
> That would be fail=1, right? So what does the "if fail=1 then" do?
> Go back and try again? If so, How?

I think that there's no way to go back here because it's a simple 
example, similar your example using types.  Pete's idea is just an
extension of this, but it provides for an automatic way to handle the
exception, rather than simply continuing execution, and forcing you
to set a flag or some other manual thing.

Your example tells the user that the file is bad, but you don't provide
for dealing with a bad file handle.  It would have to be manually checked,
as opposed to returning from the procedure after notification, or whatever
seems the right way for the app to handle the exception.

My take on structured exception handling is that it's really just a formal
and 'official' way to validate things.  I guess the benefit is that the
validation can be more easily modularized and automated (i.e., through 
type checking).

I'm not very savvy with regards to this topic, but what would/should 
happen in this case:  

type file( object o )
    if not integer(o) or o = -1 then
        return 0
    end if
    return 1
end type

file fn
procedure foo()
    -- for simplicity, suppose we try to open a 
    -- bad file, causing fn = -1
    fn = open("bad file name", "r" )
end procedure

procedure bar()
    try
        foo()
    catch
        return
    end try
    
    ? get(fn)
    close(fn)

end procedure
bar()

Would the try block apply to exceptions in foo()?  What if foo() had 
its own try block, and caught the exception, but can't fix it--in other
words, we have a bad result, and we know that the result of foo() is 
depended upon later?  Do we need to explicitly throw() an exception up 
the chain in order for bar() to know that there was an exception? What 
happens to fn?  Does it stay unassigned--or if previously assigned, does 
it keep its old value?

I know a lot about this topic has been discussed before, but I had a tough
time staying awake through the discussions. :(

Matt Lewis

12. Re: exception handler

• Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Aug 24, 2004
• 462 views
• Last edited Aug 25, 2004

Matt Lewis wrote:

> I know a lot about this topic has been discussed before, but I had a tough
> time staying awake through the discussions. :(

I think the easiest thing to do is look at how exceptions are handled 
in other languages, run some tests, and then just copy the method which 
gives the best results. Which I would define as not crashing if there 
is an alternative.

Irv

14. Re: exception handler

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Aug 25, 2004
• 469 views

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:55:15 -0700, Matt Lewis
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:

<snip>
>Would the try block apply to exceptions in foo()?
Yes, but without a 'safe point' explicitly defined in foo(), it cannot
possibly resume anywhere in that code; it would resume either
somewhere in bar() or the line following where bar() was invoked.
>  What if foo() had 
>its own try block, and caught the exception, but can't fix it--in other
>words, we have a bad result, and we know that the result of foo() is 
>depended upon later?  Do we need to explicitly throw() an exception up 
>the chain in order for bar() to know that there was an exception?
No, see below.
>What happens to fn?
Nothing.
>Does it stay unassigned--or if previously assigned, does 
>it keep its old value?
Yes. If you need to know that you have just caught and handled an
exception, then of course you just define and set a flag like you
normally would. Also, if you catch an exception in a function, then
that function must/might have to return the "unassigned" value
(#40000000 in posetf, I believe #A0000000 in Euphoria, but I could be
wrong), triggering another (higher level, so it won't loop forever)
exception if that value is ever used.

Actually, I think someone (wolf?) posted some code for this (well the
simpler single final exception handler) involving calling the win32
setFinalExceptionHandler routine with a callback routine?? Did anyone
get something similar working on Linux/dos?

Pete

16. Re: exception handler

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Aug 26, 2004
• 451 views

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:36:51 -0700, irv mullins
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:

>I suggest you call it "improved crash handling", 
Or how about "fatal error cleanup"

Pete