Re: exception handling

I would be wary of using exception handling in those situations (anticipated
deviation from normal) - there are other efficient programming methods of
dealing with those situations. Anyway, the issue is: do we want to get rid
of exception handling entirely? - in this way I understood the initial
proposition. I suggest retaining exception handling at least to disaster
cases, even in RT environment.
Cezary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Bruyninckx" <[email protected]>
To: "Cezary Zielinski" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Orocos] exception handling


> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Cezary Zielinski wrote:
>
> > Exception handling should be synonymous to handling error situations. We
> > should not try to use that in situations that are not disastrous to the
> > system. If a disaster occurs the time restrictions are not valid any
more,
> > so the indeterminism that you are speaking about is no longer an issue.
I
> > use exception handling extensively in MRROC++ and don't have problems
with
> > that.
>
> There are different levels of error situations! Some are indeed a
> `disaster', but others reflect nothing more than a change in the
> currently valid assumptions in the robot control. The latter ones can
> and should be dealt with in real-time, in some cases.
>
> The terminology `exception' is indeed a bit overloaded :-) I think
> Anders used it in the C++ interpretation of the word, which is the one
> I also use in the previous paragraph.
>
> Herman