On Wednesday 08 January 2003 11:12 am, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi ned
>
> What I'm trying to do is to avoid that a kid or novices get flooded
> by popup window when an error occurs. I want to have error because
> I want that they realize that they should test before doing
> something but I do not want them to get bored. In fact when if I do
> not succeed to do
> what I want I will use error: and tell them to use abandon. Because
> this is exactly
> what I want but with no button and stack displayed.
>
> Ok I will look at the handler. I never did that before do you know
> where I can find an example.

Quick Google search for 'smalltalk "exception handling"' yielded:

http://www.sra.co.jp/people/aoki/SmalltalkTextbook/tb25.htm
http://www.object-arts.com/Lib/EducationCentre4/htm/exceptionhandling.htm 
(Dolphin)
http://www.whysmalltalk.com/articles/fileone/exceptions_by_design.htm

> Stef
>
> On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 07:12 PM, Ned Konz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 09:35 am, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I implementing a small bot that should popup a window when
> >> pumping into walls (a kind of error). Moreover, when I have a
> >> loop I only want to have one window showing up.
> >>
> >> b1 := Bot new.
> >> 4 timesRepeat: [b1 go].
> >>
> >> I should get only one window and not 4.
> >> In fact I generated an error then caught it and I started to
> >> look around to see how I can walk up in the execution stack
> >> until I arrived to the first expression.
> >> Right now this is a nice idea but it does not work.
> >>
> >> Does anybody have an example on how to walk into a method
> >> context until a certain point?
> >> And kill it?
> >> Does somebody already have to implement similar behavior?
> >
> > I'm not altogether sure what you're trying to do, but this is
> > typically handled by exception handlers.
> >
> > Do you mean that the 4x loop should be terminated upon the first
> > wall bump? Or merely that for any number of bumps you should only
> > have a single window open?
> >
> > Of course, you can have handlers at various depths in the stack.
> > And you can re-throw an exception as another kind if you want.
> >
> > I'd install an exception handler at the topmost level (of
> > course), as well as one at each level where you want separate
> > handling.
> >
> > Does "go" run in the same Process or does it fork another one?
> >
> > --
> > Ned Konz
> > http://bike-nomad.com
> > GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
>
> Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch)
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
>   "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
>   different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
>   might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE