Sender:	nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID:	<3589BBB0.6FD6CE2F@cartsys.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:15:28 -0700
From:	Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Gautier de Montmollin <gautier DOT demontmollin AT maths DOT unine DOT ch>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: To person who ported PGCC to DJGPP
References:	<bWLoegW7sFse-pn2-NbOKdzLhgMTT AT portX56 DOT lanzen DOT net> <RsUBq0sjK$bf AT nedcu4> <bWLoegW7sFse-pn2-kf5dPNfO0Zym AT portF19 DOT Generation DOT NET> <35894922 DOT 3FB5451E AT maths DOT unine DOT ch>

Gautier de Montmollin wrote:
> 
> > > If you really want to program with exceptions, use a language
> > > where they are defined as standard and work: Ada. GNAT Ada 95 for
> > > DOS uses DJGPP 2.01 as back-end and exceptions _do_ work !
> >
> >         I like C++ and exceptions ARE a standard in the language, so I don't
> > see what the big deal is.
> 
> It isn't that I dislike C++. But maybe is the standard too fresh ? Exceptions
> should work as well as loops in any compiler. The advantage in Ada is that
> exceptions are among the basic structures of the language, from the 1st version.
> Examples:

As he says, exceptions are standard and well-defined for C++, and as you
say, they should work.  The fact that they don't, in this case, appears
to be an installation problem on his part.  Exceptions have only
recently been made to work in GCC, and DJGPP is still adjusting to the
respective changes that had to be made here.

So it's not that the standard is too fresh, it's that the compiler is
too fresh. :)
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com

- Raw text -