Welcome, Guest
Username: Password:
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

restrictions on call body 23 Jul 2002 11:37 #6159

Hi,

I am looking for a clarification of 23.3.1.1 paragraph 3 of version 2.2.0 of the standard:

It states that 'the selection of alternatives [in a call stmt body] shall be only based on getreply and catch operations for the called procedure.'

Does this mean that it is not allowed to refer to timers or ports other than the one the call has been issued on in the alternative in the call stmt? I would think yes.

Does this also mean that it is not allowed to use the unqualified catch operation on the port that the call had been issued on, because, as 23.3.6.2 states, 'a catch operation with no argument list allos any valid exception to be caught' where 'valid' means 'valid on the current port' and hence includes not only the exceptions specified for the current port. Or does 'valid' in this case translate to 'valid for the pending call', in which the catch operation will only match those exceptions specified for the pending call? And does, in this case, the unqualified catch include the catch(timeout) case?

Any clarifications welcome!

Best regards

Stephan Tobies

Please Log in to join the conversation.

restrictions on call body 23 Jul 2002 12:25 #6161

Hi Stephen,

Stephen TOBIES schrieb:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a clarification of 23.3.1.1 paragraph 3 of version 2.2.0 of
the standard:
>
> It states that 'the selection of alternatives [in a call stmt body] shall be
only based on getreply and catch operations for the called procedure.'
>
> Does this mean that it is not allowed to refer to timers or ports other than
the one the call has been issued on in the alternative in the call stmt? I would
think yes.
>

Yes, this was the intention.

> Does this also mean that it is not allowed to use the unqualified catch
operation on the port that the call had been issued on, because, as 23.3.6.2
states, 'a catch operation with no argument list allos any valid exception to be
caught' where 'valid' means 'valid on the current port' and hence includes not
only the exceptions specified for the current port. Or does 'valid' in this case
translate to 'valid for the pending call', in which the catch operation will
only match those exceptions specified for the pending call? And does, in this
case, the unqualified catch include the catch(timeout) case?
>

This looks like something which has not been considered when
writing/discussing
the mentioned sections. I believe the same holds for unqualified
getreply operations.
I have no answers for the moment.

Personally, I would vote for the following resolution of these
ambiguities:
- unqualified catch and getreply should only match for replies and
exceptions
valid for the pending call,
- catch(timeout)-exceptions should be handled differently from
exceptions raised by the called procedure, i.e., an unqualified catch
does
not match the catch(timeout) case.

However, this is only my personal view.

Regards
Jens

> Any clarifications welcome!
>
> Best regards
>
> Stephan Tobies

--

======================================================================
Dr. Jens Grabowski
Institute for Telematics phone: +49 451 500 3723
University of Luebeck fax: +49 451 500 3722
Ratzeburger Allee 160 eMail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
D-23538 Luebeck or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(Germany) WWW: www.itm.mu-luebeck.de
======================================================================

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1

FacebookTwitterGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedin