Re: [SC-L] Coding with errors in mind - a solution?

On 8/31/06 8:05 PM, mikeiscool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/1/06, Pascal Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/30/06 3:46 PM, Tim Hollebeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you've proposed are exceptions. They do help (some) in separating the normal logic from error handling, but:

Re: [SC-L] How can we stop the spreading insecure codingexamplesattraining classes, etc.?

Also, exceptions (unlike gotos) cannot be used to jump backward, thereby creating hidden loops. Used correctly, exceptions eliminate large amounts of code that would otherwise be required to handle unexpected failures at every level in a function call stack and propagate such failures upwards by

[SC-L] Retrying exceptions - was 'Coding with errors in mind'

Pascal Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Hollebeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (2) in many languages, you can't retry or resume the faulting code. Exceptions are really far less useful in this case. See above. (Yes, Ruby supports retrying). Bjorn Stroustrup discusses retrying exceptions

Re: [SC-L] Retrying exceptions - was 'Coding with errors in mind'

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jonathan Leffler wrote: | Pascal Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Tim Hollebeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | (2) in many languages, you can't retry or resume the faulting code. | Exceptions are really far less useful in this case. | | See above. (Yes, Ruby supports