On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 23.06.2015, at 23:23, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why not vice versa? Halt being a Warning would be more natural to me than Warning being
>>> a Halt.
>>
>> We really should structure the class hierarchy based on the exception
>> handling use-cases we want to support, not semantics.  If Halt
>> inherited from Warning, then applications would no longer be able to
>> halt separately from handling Warnings (except by handling Halt too,
>> no way!).
>
> Then they should be siblings in any case.

Should these have a new superclass whose name echos their common
handling wrt to the debugger?
(not that I'm clear on what that name would be)
cheers -ben