"BSOD" => huh? Oh, Blue Screen of Death.
Certainly if the OS doesn't support trapping an error, then the language running on it
cannot either. But if the OS does, then the language could. If the language could,
then the question remains whether it should, and that's a -language topic that hasn
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >
> > Just to point out that fatal is, indeed, as several people keep
> > saying, truly in the eye of the catcher.
> >
> > That said, none of the currently proposed mechanisms permit
> > "resume from fault" semantics, much less "resume from hardware
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Just to point out that fatal is, indeed, as several people keep
> saying, truly in the eye of the catcher.
>
> That said, none of the currently proposed mechanisms permit
> "resume from fault" semantics, much less "resume from hardware
> fault" semantics. Sounds like go
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:48 AM 8/24/00 +0200, Markus Peter wrote:
>
> >--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
> >>errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
> >>...;
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Markus Peter wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as an ultimately fatal error - it should
> > always be up to the user of a module wether the program should
> > die, but I guess you see that the same and will answer me with
> > "use eval" then ;-)
>
> I hope you're speakin
At 02:48 AM 8/24/00 +0200, Markus Peter wrote:
>--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
>>Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
>>errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
>>...; exit ( 250 );" instead of "die .
--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
> errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
> ...; exit ( 250 );" instead of "die ...;" like they do today. [Tongue
> firmly plante
Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
...; exit ( 250 );" instead of "die ...;" like they do today. [Tongue
firmly planted on cheek.]
Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:24:23 -
