Re: exceptions in Basic

[andreas.bregas]

Hi Frank,

>> This would
>> match with the err variable concept and we wouldn't have
>> to implement the complete try/catch syntax that isn't
>> Basic like anyway.
>
> Well ... how is "Basic like" defined? By the Basic originally invented
> some decades ago, by one of the zillions of Basic dialects out there, or
>  by what we me make of it? I certainly vote for the latter ...

Ok, maybe I should have better written "VB(A) like" since
this is our reference. I'm not sure if it's really neces-
sary to extend a language by elements that belong to ano-
ther language as long as there are similar native elements.

The on error concept surely isn't the most elegant one but
it already exists and Basic programmers are used to it. So
if it can be extended moderately to support UNO exception
handling I would prefer it to introducing another complete-
ly different concept. I think as we all are very C++ and/or
Java oriented we always risk to regard the C++/Java langua-
ge element as the "right" ones. IMHO in a language binding
UNO concepts should be adopted as near to the target lan-
guage as possible because the users of this language should
use it in the first place.


> We also need, IMO, a "throw". (I think Mathias will agree to me here.
> AFAIK, his repeated argueing for exception-less UNO API originates from
> his team's experiences with existing API which could not be used in
> Basic, since this would have required the script to throw an exception.)
> If we would decide to have it, *not* having try/catch would look ...
> senseless.

VB(A) has a command "raise" that currently is not supported
in OOo Basic but it does something similar. So also for
throw there could be a native Basic variant. And why do we
need a try/catch together with a throw/raise as long as we
have a similar functionality in on error?

I'm not completely against a try/catch/throw in Basic but
I think there must be very good reasons - e.g. too big li-
mitations - not to provide a similar functionality in the
scope of the already existing native language elements.

Regards

Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: interface-discuss-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: interface-discuss-help@...

[Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany]

Hi Andreas,

> The on error concept surely isn't the most elegant one but
> it already exists and Basic programmers are used to it. So
> if it can be extended moderately to support UNO exception
> handling I would prefer it to introducing another complete-
> ly different concept. I think as we all are very C++ and/or
> Java oriented we always risk to regard the C++/Java langua-
> ge element as the "right" ones. IMHO in a language binding
> UNO concepts should be adopted as near to the target lan-
> guage as possible because the users of this language should
> use it in the first place.

Convinced.

> VB(A) has a command "raise" that currently is not supported
> in OOo Basic but it does something similar. So also for
> throw there could be a native Basic variant. And why do we
> need a try/catch together with a throw/raise as long as we
> have a similar functionality in on error?

Okay, didn't know about "raise". I'd now vote for implementing the
"CurrentUnoException", plus "raise", where the latter is able to raise
an UNO exception. That would fit to the language, and make Basic fully
UNO-exception-aware.

Ciao
Frank

--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer         frank.schoenheit@... -
- Sun Microsystems                      http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Base                       http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: interface-discuss-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: interface-discuss-help@...