On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:44 AM, David Ayers
<address@hidden> wrote:
Hello Gregory,
Am Freitag, den 06.02.2009, 00:33 -0500 schrieb Gregory Casamento:
> What should "NSExceptionMask" be implemented as? SHould it be a
> boolean that determines if we should allow the application to continue
> or not?
Did you read the link that Richard provided?
http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/Exceptions/Exceptions.html
Table 1 Exception-handling constants and defaults values:
Type of Action / Constant / Value for defaults
----------------------------------------------
Log uncaught NSExceptions / NSLogUncaughtExceptionMask / 1
Handle uncaught NSExceptions / NSHandleUncaughtExceptionMask / 2
Log system-level exceptions / NSLogUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 4
Handle system-level exceptions / NSHandleUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 8
Log runtime errors / NSLogUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 16
Handle runtime errors / NSHandleUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 32
> That is to say
> * NSExceptionMask = YES - report all exceptions, but continue
> anyway...
> * NSExceptionMask = NO - current behavior
That would be a GNUstep extension and in my view more confusing than the
current behavior.
> If so, I have a patch almost ready. I'll submit it to the group prior
> to committing it since a change that is this important needs to have
> some amount of consensus.
That's good.
Yet I must admit that I find it a bit unsettling that DBModeler (who's
eomodeld files are comparatively trivial) may abort while GORM (who's
gorm/nib files contain very complex relationships) my silently corrupt
it's files due to bugs in third party palettes.
I just want you to consider this very carefully with respect to the
default setting of GORM.
Cheers,
David
--