Re: What's new in 2.5?
On 8 Sep 2004 17:59:51 +0200, Christian Cuvier
<Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr> wrote:
<snip>
>I can remember your reluctant view of preventive action being taken by having
>a hook monitor the arglist.
And I still believe that. The proposal that exception handling is in
general a good programming practice (although common) is usually based
on a misunderstanding. If exceptions occur more than once in about 600
times, then it will always be much slower; or of course if the code
saving is less than the frame costs, which are often fairly high.
There are a few cases where it is better, for example rather than
check for an unassigned variable on *every* statement, trap the
exception attempting to (eg) read/write address #FFFFFFFC.
There is also a case for using a badly written 3rd party library and
needing to recover from the exceptions it should not throw.
And, of course, you couldn't really write a machine-level debugger
without them, least not one you could attach while the program was
already running.
But in *general*, always prevent errors, not cure them, as you said.
>This would help implementing default routine params, for instance.
You lost me. Care to elaborate?
>
>Bottom line: you are right, as long as the handler can resume program
>execution. And I'm afraid I read posts in the opposite direction by RC.
I've already publicly said RC should concentrate on a simple final
exception handler to allow some degree of cleanup before the program
terminates (not that I've tried the win32lib thing), before launching
into full-blown structured exception handling, which is complicated.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
