From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Mon Nov 16 1998 - 03:24:54 EST
On Nov 16, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> Anyway, I still don't like very much the idea of modifying the return
>> values of the functions. Can't we just rely on the fact that, if the
>> class name is NULL, no exception was thrown, otherwise the returned
>> value is meaningless?
> I'm not sure what you mean.
My suggestion is that the errorInfo classname would be initialized to
NULL, and, after calling a function that might have modified it, you'd
just check whether classname is still NULL. If not, an exception was
thrown. Then, you wouldn't have to create return values for the
functions. After all, sometimes a NULL might be a valid return
value.
> I reused the return value where functions had a return value (getClass,
> for instance), I added a return value for functions returning void,
> processClass for instance. There is no way around that.
My suggestion is a way around that. But not using this approach is
fine, as long as there is no possible ambiguity in the return values.
I agree that your approach is faster, it's just that it might not be
completely safe if there were any possibility that the returned value
might be taken as an exception condition when in fact it is just a
regular return value.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org.au}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:03 EDT