RunError

[Frank Heckenbach]

Peter Gerwinski wrote:

> Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > I (Peter Gerwinski) wrote:
> > > > BTW, (Peter:) BP accepts "RunError" without an argument, so GPC should
> > > > allow that, too. However, BP gives a "Runtime Error 0" then, which I don't
> > > > like very much, since the exit status 0 usually means success. So, GPC
> > > > should probably use some other error code...
> > > 
> > > Which one?
> > 
> > I'd say one in the "unsorted errors" range 0..99, perhaps 99 -- or 42. ;-)
> 
> What about 81 (assertion failure)?

Don't think so. It's got nothing do to with assertions -- or rather,
it might have, but then, it might be something completely different.
It's up to the programmer what s/he uses this error for...

I think 80 (call to predefined procedure `Bug') would be closer.
AFAICS, there's no predefined procedure `Bug' currently. Does the
standard or some dialect demand one? If not, we could use that and
replace `Bug' by `RunError'. But we can just as well use a new error
code (error codes are not a scarce resource -- we have the full
Integer range available, and currently only nearly 200 out of the
first 1000 are used ;-)...

And apropos assertions: it's easy to write a procedure for runtime
assertions, like the following:

procedure Assert (Condition : Boolean; const Message : String);
begin
  if not Condition then
    Runtime_Error_CString (81, Message)
end;

(changing the text of the error message to "failed assertion `%s'").
Should I put this routine into the RTS? (This would also make it easier
to change the error number, when the error numbers are rearranged.)

Frank

--
Frank Heckenbach, frank at fjf.gnu.de
http://fjf.gnu.de/
PGP and GPG keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan