> Why can't low and high level events share the same abstractions,
> and even be placed on the same event queue? I also think
> exception-handling
> has much in common with event handling (on: exception do: aBlock). The
> exception looks to me very much like an 'event' that the block is told
> about. Is it possible to fuse these three mechanisms into a common
> abstraction and reuse a lot of the code, or is this just wishful
> thinking on
> my part?
>
> Peter

I think you are definitely on to something here.  If you look at exception
handling from an event point of view, what you are doing is simply
registering an insterest in whether a particular chain of calls results in
an exceptional situation.  In a sense, one method context becomes an
observer of a called method context.  You can even take it one step further
and say that when we wait (in a synchronous call) on the result of a message
send, we are registering an interest on any (there can be more than one
answer from a method in a generic messaging approach) answers that a method
context has to give.  In fact, in playing with asynchronous messaging, I
discovered that places where I would have used a "Notification" type of
exception to indicate progress of a method, I could simply send multiple
answers through the answer queue for a method context.

All of this leads me to believe that there is in fact a common, unified
approach to messaging (where answers are concerned), exception handling,
events, and dependecies.

- Stephen