[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
My 4p worth...
Must remind myself of what the great CARH had to say about interruption,
but I agree with Marcel's comments regarding the real world. I've always
based my CPA teaching on things like building sites (following Fox),
better still natural systems. The need to respond to (shared) events with
different degrees of priority is unavoidable in reality.
In my view, the only case for exception-handling in programs is to
avoid repetitive and tedious clutter. But that's a strong case. If added
to any language, I'd hope for a mapping back to existing constructs.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, our priority should be priority.
I believe priority must associate with events, and not processes. An
exception is just a high-priority event. In occam, priority may not be
agreed by two communicating processes, and is static (in reality it can
A _real_ process must respond to error. Any finite system can suffer
overflow, for example. Such events should be predefined. The process must
then be capable of resetting, or terminating, the entire system (or just
the subset of processes within the current "atomic action"). I like the
idea of having Peter's poison algorithm built-in, but only as an option.
I want WYSIWYG code.
I gather the default exception response in a typical engine management
unit is to turn off the engine. Let's hope the process responsible for
"electronic brake distribution" doesn't turn off the brakes.
How about a dedicated "beer and sandwiches" lunch-time session on this in
Dr. Ian Robert East School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences
ireast@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Oxford Brookes University
(44) 1865 483635 Oxford OX3 0BP
Consultation hours for 2001/2002 Term 1
To be decided