[e-lang] Consequences of transactional E?

[Kevin Reid]

On Jan 30, 2007, at 20:59, David Hopwood wrote:
> Previous discussion on how exception objects should be restricted:
> <http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/2003-December/009374.html>  
> and
> <http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/2006-February/011112.html>.

As I wrote the second of those messages, let me make this clear:

I did not propose that exception *objects* be in any way restricted.

That message describes what I had implemented in E-on-CL, which is a  
*behavior of throws*. Exceptions have little special behavior (though  
for implementation reasons they must be instances of the built-in  
exception type). It is just that between throw() and catch ... {},  
the object is put in a sealed box.

I'm open to considering a system which restricts the objects which  
can be thrown; I only want to make it clear that what I described  
then is not such a system.

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>