From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2198 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 18:08:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 2184 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 18:08:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:08:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EACE2BAB8F; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id V4GC3I29TuLQ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35AE22BAB42; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36567F5917; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: finish_command_continuation and errors Message-ID: <20100318180803.GB2844@adacore.com> References: <201003181728.30450.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00675.txt.bz2 > It seems to me that, abstractly, observers should not be allowed to > throw exceptions. Perhaps the observer machinery itself ought to catch > them. My reasoning is that letting an observer throw an exception will > make the observer mechanism apparently unreliable: a given observer > might or might not be called, depending on whether some earlier observer > encountered an error. I think this makes sense. -- Joel