At 05:20 PM 8/23/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I'd appreciate your description of what you meant by orthogonal, it certainly
>doesn't fit my definition, or that of my dictionaries, as far as I understand
>mathematics. This dissertation on the meaning of the word orthogonal is, of
>course, somewhat off-topic, except to the extent that it impacts our
>communications.
I'm sorry I drove you to your dictionaries; I was probably a bit orthogonal
myself when I wrote that :-) It's not worth trying to recover what I
thought I meant when you understood it anyway.
>On the other hand, you've made it very clear that you prefer to see fatal
>error
>trapping and non-fatal error handling done with the same mechanism,
>whether the
>word orthogonal has anything to do with it or not.
>
>We disagree.
>
>While nothing in RFC 88 precludes die and throw from sharing the same
>underlying
>code, or similarly catch/eval, doing so isn't a good idea: it forces
>people that
>want to use exceptions for non-fatal error handling to suddenly have to also
>handle fatal errors as well.
I think I've already stated my case as to the meanings of "fatal" and
"non-fatal".
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
