Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible?

mac <acolvin@efunct.com>
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:08:10 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? federation2005@netzero.com (2014-03-26)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? rpw3@rpw3.org (2014-03-27)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-03-27)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? usenet@bitblocks.com (Bakul Shah) (2014-03-26)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-03-27)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-03-28)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? acolvin@efunct.com (mac) (2014-03-28)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-03-28)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-03-29)
Re: PL/I exceptions, was catch and throw, was Is multi-level function gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-03-29)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-03-29)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-03-29)
Re: catch and throw, was Is multi-level function return possible? ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-03-28)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: mac <acolvin@efunct.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:08:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 14-03-065 14-03-068 14-03-070
Keywords: errors, PL/I, history
Posted-Date: 28 Mar 2014 20:25:22 EDT

> PL/I had ON and SIGNAL statements. SIGNAL would signal an exception.
> ON would catch it. REVERT to cancel the effect of ON. Web search
> indicates it was defined in 1964 but implemented later. May be the
> PL/I designered borrowed it from an earlier




Not quite the same. ON defined a handler invoked at the signal site. It
could attempt repair and return. more like an interrupt. However, the
typical handler did a non-local GOTO to bail out, clearing any calls
between the signal and the gone-to label.


I still think that the ability to resume can be useful.


The classic survey is Goodenough 1975
<http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~bec/courses/csci5535-s09/reading/goodenough-exceptions.pdf>

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.