[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> I think John has the right idea: it should be a higher
> level option (like the old in line debugging for the
> Transputer) thus preserving the purity and simplicity of
> the language and avoiding Richard's objection of
> complexity - since as you have shown, there IS a cut and
> dried technique for doing it.
> Extra processes are still WYSIWYG if they are created
> by a known technique using a known link-option.
Well... Its not *just* a link-option, because when you change
the default behavior you need to tell the system what process
replaces what default. I'm thinking that it should be a process
language that manipulates process objects.
You're saying that's what Occam is? Well, almost. What you
need to be able to do is to consisely say "replace the channel
error handler of process x with process y and parallel that with
process z." (Is that kind of what you were thinking of, Rick,
when you mentioned generalised exception handling?)