🚀 go-pugleaf

> From the examples given, it seems we have fundamentally different
> ideas about what an "exception" actually is.  For example, when
> reading characters from a file, I do not consider reaching the end
> of the file as an exceptional condition and I certainly don't like the
> idea of using an exception to terminate an iteration over a fixed
> range.  IMHO exceptions can be replaced by either making a function
> take/return additional arguments or by dynamically binding a function
> to be called in the event of an "exception".
> 

Both of you seem to have good points.

This is something where Basic seems to have had easy to use if crude solutions 
ON ERROR <do something>
It only caught things that the language implementors considered errors which 
perhaps is your view as opposed to user defined conditions.

Do we now have a call for OOP exceptions? This may be where you both meet. 

I am placing copyright on OOPS() ;-) (I hope the humour travels well)

Is it reasonable to think of programming as fully defining the error system 
with the side effect of producing the intended program? 

  TC. 
    E-mail: tchannon@black.demon.co.uk or tchannon@cix.compulink.co.uk