Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Tim -
> 
> That's certainly a valid solution but I was curious about general 
> insights on the issue. E.g., is a non-resumable exception actually 
> allowed to simply return from its default action and therefore 
> (implicitly) resume although it has been declared non-resumable?
Ah, well I think this is something of an issue with the idea of a
defaultAction that actually does something wrt handling the exception.
Personally I've never liked the whole idea of default actions anyway.
Handle or handle not, young skywalker.

I don't think I want to go delving into that particular ratsnest right
now but perhaps a non-resumable exception shouldn't be able to do such
things. Oh, what the hell.... maybe we should change
UndefinedObject>handleSignal: to use #resume: and not
#resumeUnchecked:? Wonder how much fallout there would be.


tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at rowledge.org, http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Talks to plants on their own level.