Re: Try Finally...
From: VBDis (vbdis_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: VBDis: "Structured Exception Handling (was: Try Finally...)"
- Previous message: VBDis: "Re: Try Finally..."
- In reply to:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Next in thread: Maarten Wiltink: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 26 Oct 2004 21:27:44 GMT
Im Artikel <v9grn098ltejsdsfrpisq09u255s8ffu3c@4ax.com>, L D Blake
<not@any.adr> schreibt:
>Ok, you STILL aren't hearing what I'm saying and it's getting pretty obvious
>you don't actually understand how SEH works. Absent that, it's pretty much
>impossible for us to have a reasonable conversation on the topic.
IMO we should split the discussion into distinct topics:
- how SEH is supported by Windows
- how SEH works in Delphi
- how SEH could be implemented in Delphi with less code
>AND... because my patience is all but gone, I'm going to just drop it.
>
>I truly do regret asking this question.
Perhaps you should clarify what exactly you want to discuss. Your arguments
look to me as if you do not only want to modify the code of the Delphi
implementation in SysUtils, but that at the same time you want to modify the
behaviour of that code. The possibility of a modification of the SEH code
offers chances that deserve some discussion, like possible modifications and
extensions of the current Delphi behaviour. In such a discussion we should
agree to have understood how the current implementation works, and how it's
assumed to be used in application code, separate from the way it could be made
to behave.
Having understood that difference, you (Laura) should stop to refrain that
Finally aborts a program, since this is not true. Then the other contributors
will stop to blame you for an obvious misunderstanding of the existing Delphi
SEH. Then you can start to explain how YOU want SEH to occur, both from the
viewpoint of the library supplied code as well as with regards to application
code. Since your intended implementation can be used at will, and nobody is
pressed to use it if s/he doesn't agree with possibly changed behaviour, we can
discuss a possibly different behaviour without repeated statements THAT this
behaviour is different in this or another way. That would decrease the stress
level considerably.
D'accord?
Nonetheless we should try to figure out the impact of any modifications on
existing code - it finally must be absolutely clear what continues to work as
expected (like the finalization of dynamic objects etc.), and what will be
broken intentionally. Your sometimes inappropriate argumentation suggests to me
that you are developing the SEH replacement in a very restricted context, and
not yet tried to figure out the reason for the added 24KB of code in SysUtils.
You may be not interested in such a discussion, because you intend to use your
code only according to your habits. But whenever somebody else shall use that
code, too, then all the consequences must be known. Are you willing to go into
an "let's see what stops to work..." cycle with your code, until all side
effects are either eliminated or well documented?
DoDi
- Next message: VBDis: "Structured Exception Handling (was: Try Finally...)"
- Previous message: VBDis: "Re: Try Finally..."
- In reply to:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Next in thread: Maarten Wiltink: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
