Re: QUIT and ABORT

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: QUIT and ABORT
De : dxforth (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dxf)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 17. May 2025, 14:28:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <4481f037e7bf4a8d7faa59640a9dcfac01c42226@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 17/05/2025 9:30 pm, Ruvim wrote:
On 2025-05-17 06:56, dxf wrote:
On 16/05/2025 9:12 pm, Ruvim wrote:
...
What solution do you mean?
>
Default behaviour of QUIT is Core QUIT.  THROW handles -56 by jumping to
Core QUIT.
>
If you make `throw` do this regardless of whether a user's exception frame exists in the exception stack, you make the `-56` error code uncatchable. So, the following test case will fail:
>
   t{  [: -56 throw ;] catch -> -56 }t
>
And what is the benefit?
>
Why should it fail?
 
You wrote: "THROW handles -56 by jumping to Core QUIT". Then the test should fail. But as you now show, you only meant the case where there is no user exception frame in the exception stack.
 
 
>
   [: -56 throw ;] catch  ok  -56 <
>
   [: -1 throw ;] catch  ok  -1 <
 
Okay, these cases are compliant.
 
 
>
   1 2 3 -56 throw
     ok  1 2 3 <
>
   1 2 3 -1 throw
     ok
 
This special handling of `-56` is inconsistent, not justified by practice, and complicates implementations.

Neither special nor complicated:

  -1  of s0 @ sp! fs0 @ fsp ! (core-quit) then

  -56 of (core-quit) then
 
Yes, in some scenarios (such as interactive work) you may prefer this behavior, but for *any* uncaught exceptions. So, special handling of `-56` won't help you at all.
>
>
>
  The application programmer then has the option of making QUIT
catchable by defining:
>
    : QUIT -56 THROW ;
>
>
But this option already exists. There is no need to specially handle `-56` in `throw`.
>
By that argument there's no reason to specially handle -1 in THROW.
>
 
As I already mentioned, there are no special handling, it only specifies error messages:
 
  -1 — the empty message (no message);
  -2 — a program-defined message (from last executed `abort"`);
  any other — an implementation defined message concerning the error conditions.
 
Except for the message text, all actions are the same regardless of the error code.

By 'same action' you mean they all converge at Core QUIT.  Well, the QUIT I'm
discussing does that too.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
27 Mar 25 * "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"198Alexis
27 Mar 25 +* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"5Martin Nicholas
28 Mar 25 i`* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"4Alexis
28 Mar 25 i `* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"3Martin Nicholas
30 Mar 25 i  +- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1Alexis
30 Mar 25 i  `- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1Bernd Linsel
28 Mar 25 +* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"7anthk
29 Mar 25 i`* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"6mhx
29 Mar 25 i +- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1dxf
30 Mar 25 i +* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"3anthk
5 Apr 25 i i+- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1anthk
6 Apr 25 i i`- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1sjack
31 Mar 25 i `- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1John Ames
30 Mar 25 +* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"86sjack
1 Apr 25 i`* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"85dxf
29 Apr 25 i `* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth84Hans Bezemer
30 Apr 25 i  +* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth80dxf
30 Apr 25 i  i+* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth77Hans Bezemer
1 May 25 i  ii`* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth76dxf
1 May 25 i  ii +* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth3John Doe
1 May 25 i  ii i+- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1Stephen Pelc
1 May 25 i  ii i`- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1Anton Ertl
1 May 25 i  ii `* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth72Hans Bezemer
2 May 25 i  ii  +- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1dxf
3 May 25 i  ii  `* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth70dxf
3 May 25 i  ii   +* QUIT and ABORT (was: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth)68Anton Ertl
3 May 25 i  ii   i+- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
3 May 25 i  ii   i+* Re: QUIT and ABORT65dxf
3 May 25 i  ii   ii`* Re: QUIT and ABORT64Anton Ertl
4 May 25 i  ii   ii +* Re: QUIT and ABORT62dxf
4 May 25 i  ii   ii i`* Re: QUIT and ABORT61Anton Ertl
5 May 25 i  ii   ii i +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
5 May 25 i  ii   ii i +* Re: QUIT and ABORT54dxf
5 May 25 i  ii   ii i i`* Re: QUIT and ABORT53Ruvim
5 May 25 i  ii   ii i i +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Ruvim
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i +* Re: QUIT and ABORT3dxf
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i i+- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Anton Ertl
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Ruvim
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i `* Re: QUIT and ABORT48dxf
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i  +* Re: QUIT and ABORT3Ruvim
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i  i+- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Anton Ertl
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i  i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i  `* Re: QUIT and ABORT44Anton Ertl
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i i   `* Re: QUIT and ABORT43dxf
7 May 25 i  ii   ii i i    `* Re: QUIT and ABORT42Ruvim
8 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     +* Re: QUIT and ABORT40dxf
8 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i`* Re: QUIT and ABORT39Ruvim
9 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i `* Re: QUIT and ABORT38dxf
9 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i  `* Re: QUIT and ABORT37Ruvim
9 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i   `* Re: QUIT and ABORT36dxf
9 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i    +* Re: QUIT and ABORT2albert
10 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i    i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
9 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i    `* Re: QUIT and ABORT33Ruvim
10 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i     +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
13 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i     `* Re: QUIT and ABORT31Ruvim
14 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i      `* Re: QUIT and ABORT30dxf
14 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i       `* Re: QUIT and ABORT29Ruvim
15 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i        `* Re: QUIT and ABORT28dxf
16 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i         `* Re: QUIT and ABORT27Ruvim
16 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i          `* Re: QUIT and ABORT26dxf
16 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i           `* Re: QUIT and ABORT25Ruvim
17 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i            `* Re: QUIT and ABORT24dxf
17 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i             `* Re: QUIT and ABORT23Ruvim
17 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i              `* Re: QUIT and ABORT22dxf
17 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i               `* Re: QUIT and ABORT21Ruvim
18 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                `* Re: QUIT and ABORT20dxf
18 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                 +* Re: QUIT and ABORT2Anton Ertl
18 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                 i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
18 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                 `* Re: QUIT and ABORT17Ruvim
18 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                  `* Re: QUIT and ABORT16dxf
19 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                   `* Re: QUIT and ABORT15Ruvim
20 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                    `* Re: QUIT and ABORT14dxf
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                     `* Re: QUIT and ABORT13Ruvim
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      +* Re: QUIT and ABORT7mhx
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      i+* Re: QUIT and ABORT5Ruvim
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      ii`* Re: QUIT and ABORT4mhx
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      ii +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Ruvim
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      ii +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Anton Ertl
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      ii `- Re: QUIT and ABORT1albert
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Anton Ertl
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1albert
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                      `* Re: QUIT and ABORT4dxf
24 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                       `* Re: QUIT and ABORT3Ruvim
25 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                        `* Re: QUIT and ABORT2dxf
26 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     i                         `- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
8 May 25 i  ii   ii i i     `- Re: QUIT and ABORT1Ruvim
5 May 25 i  ii   ii i `* Re: QUIT and ABORT5mhx
6 May 25 i  ii   ii i  +- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
7 May 25 i  ii   ii i  `* Re: QUIT and ABORT3albert
7 May 25 i  ii   ii i   `* Re: QUIT and ABORT2minforth
7 May 25 i  ii   ii i    `- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
4 May 25 i  ii   ii `- Re: QUIT and ABORT1dxf
4 May 25 i  ii   i`- Re: QUIT and ABORT (was: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth)1albert
5 May 25 i  ii   `- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1dxf
30 Apr 25 i  i`* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth2sjack
1 May 25 i  i `- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1dxf
30 Apr 25 i  `* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth3albert
30 Apr 25 i   `* Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth2Hans Bezemer
30 Apr 25 i    `- Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth1mhx
4 Apr 25 +- Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"1dxf
5 Apr 25 `* Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"98dxf

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal