Steve and Bruce went back and forth:

> >I'm going to disagree pretty strongly with this one. Especially since
> >I have to admit that the misconception behind this thinking is much
> >more widespread than I care for.  ...........
>
> Not at all. A program, like a procedure should have a single exit
> point, at which all global-scope cleanup work is done. Scattering
> cleanup code all over the program, at every point an error is
> detected, makes for an unreadable program  .....
>
> One of the things that MPE lacks is a supported, well-integrated
> language with well-integrated database handling. In the absence of
> language-mediated exception handling, the programmer must
> simulate it with explicit transfers of control.

O.K...:  I'll bite on the "well-integrated database handing" part:   NM
Transact/iX with Trandebug/iX..    :-)    Yes:  I know:  Argument can
be made that even with Transact exception-handling functionality is
still somewhat limited....  But for most things I want to do most of the
time, it takes care of the behind-the-scenes details while allowing me
full procedural control...   The were just a *few* more enhancements
we wished HP would have been  done.....   <sigh>

Ken Sletten

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *