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 *