The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 10 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Exception handling: issues and a proposed notation
Open accessAbstract
This paper defines exception conditions, discusses the requirements exception handling language features must satisfy, and proposes some new language features for dealing with exceptions in an orderly and reliable way. The proposed language features serve to highlight exception handling issues by showing how deficiencies in current approaches can be remedied.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 3 Sources not found · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exception handling notations that imply a fixed implementation technique are therefore not suited for dealing with the complete range of exception requirements.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Communications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that in contrast to PL/I, exceptions raised implicitly within a subroutine are not automatically passed to the subroutine's invoker; if they are to be passed one level higher, then they must be raised explicitly, using one of the commands given in the next section.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In short, exceptions and exception handling mechanisms are not needed just to deal with errors.They are needed, in general, as a means of conveniently interleaving actions belonging to different levels of abstraction [2][3][4][5][6][7].”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Communications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. Buxton, J.N. and Randell, B. [1969]. Software Engineering Tech- niques. NATO Science Committee, Brussels, 1970.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] 3. Caracciolo di Forino, A. [1968]. String processing languages and generalized Markov algorithms. In Symbol Manipulation Languages and Techniques, D. G. Bobrow (Ed.), North Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam. source
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Courant, R. [1961]. In Applied mathematics: what is needed in References
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ability to associate a handler with several activation points is useful, but it does make it possible to inadvertently associate the wrong handler with an activation point.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the value of distinguishing N O T I F Y exceptions is that if an operation is guaranteed to be resumed after an exception is handled, the implementor of the operation need not spend any effort or space to take care of the possibility of being terminated.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proposed default exception handling notation permits programmer-defined and system-defined exceptions to be dealt with uniformly.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > ENDPAGE ENDPAGE 693
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the existing exception handling methods mentioned earlier is optimally efficient for dealing with every type of exception condition.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most exception handling methods do not satisfy requirements for default exceptions very well.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proposed method obviously is uniform in this respect, unlike the use of subroutines, labels, or status variables passed as parameters.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But neither standard PL/I nor MULTICS PL/I provide completely suitable default exception facilities.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A third set of techniques has been proposed pri-685 Communications December 1975 of Volume 18 the ACM Number 12 marily for dealing with range failures.These techniques are based on the idea that recovery from a range failure is impossible; the only sensible action is to try some alternative operation that may succeed in obtaining the desired effect.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 2. Previous Exception Handling Techniques
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Hill, I.D. Faults in functions, in ALGOL and FORTRAN. Computer J. 14, 3 (March 1972), pp. 315-316.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [15] 15. Ross, D.T. The AED free storage package. Comm. A C M 10, 8 (August 1967), 481-492. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Our copy does not discuss “range failures” or describe a set of techniques that responds to them by trying another operation (searched: “range failures” and “recovery from failure impossible alternative operations”). Section 5.3, “Error Procedure, FERR” (page unavailable), distinguishes Help conditions from actual errors, but does not establish what the citing sentence attributes to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. AED Programmer's Guide. SofTech, Inc., Waltham, Mass. 1972.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The ability to pass exceptions up to an enclosing context is convenient because it is quite natural to deal with an exception first locally and then more globally [19].”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [19] 19. Golomb, S.W. and Baumert, L.D. Backtrack programming. J. A C M 12, 4 (Oct. 1965), 516-524. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2, “Basic Formulation of Backtrack” (page unavailable), describes returning to an earlier choice when a search path fails, not passing exceptions to an enclosing context. Searches for exception handling and local-to-global handling found no passage addressing the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we will argue later that any of these techniques could be used in implementing our proposed exception handling notation.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 2. Previous Exception Handling Techniques
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exception handling issues that arise from the interaction between an exception raising operation and its immediate invoker are somewhat different from those that arise when an exception is disposed of by an indirect invoker.These issues are sufficiently different to deserve special attention.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3. Exception Handling Requirements and Issues
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In Hoare's proposal, the failure of Q1 does not imply the effects of QI are undone before Q2 is invoked.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 2. Previous Exception Handling Techniques
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16] 16. AED Programmer's Guide. SofTech, Inc., Waltham, Mass. 1972.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The definition of a handler's reach makes it possible to associate a handler with more than one activation point.This makes programs more readable than if a handler could be associated with only one activation point•”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are not necessarily rarely activated.For example, in their use in dealing with result classification, they might be activated on every invocation of an operation.In their use in monitoring operations and receiving intermediate results, an exception might occur many times for a single invocation of the operation.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Communications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this paper I propose a notation that is neutral with respect to its implementation, so that exceptions raised by different operations can potentially be implemented differently, depending on their expected frequency and type of use.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Communications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They all have serious drawbacks of one kind or another, but to place the paper in perspective, it is useful to review other exception handling approaches briefly.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 2. Previous Exception Handling Techniques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In essence, exceptions permit the user of an operation to extend an operation's domain (the set of inputs for which effects are defined) or its range (the effects obtained when certain inputs are processed).”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, exceptions serve to generalize operations, making them usable in a wider variety of contexts than would otherwise be the case.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ESCAPE statement serves naturally as a multilevel loop exiting method, e.g.When X is raised, both the inner and outer loops will be terminated.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But this additional EXIT command complexity provides no new expressive power, and only makes the EXIT statement more complex to implement and understand.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(c) the need to clean up before terminating an operation (the CLEANUP optional exception associated with SIGNAL) ;”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doing so is useful and will drastically reduce the number of exceptions that would otherwise have to be passed up to the main program.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.4 Exception Handling Hierarchies
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The exception handling method being proposed in this paper permits an invoker to terminate or resume operations and it makes control flow constraints explicit.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N O T I F Y exceptions are defined and raised similarly, and the N O T I F Y control flow constraints can similarly be enforced by a compiler.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whatever effects can be achieved with run-time association can be achieved by the proposed static method with equal convenience and with increased reliability.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) Declaration of default exceptions.To help prevent and detect mistakes in using exceptions, exceptions having default handlers should be declared to have them.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N o t providing such a c o m m a n d is too restrictive, since programming by stepwise refinement or levels of abstraction implies that top level programs will be unaware of many exceptions raised at lower levels.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.4 Exception Handling Hierarchies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The default exception handling capability described here is not necessarily difficult to implement.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > ENDPAGE ENDPAGE 693
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) Uniformity.The methods for overriding or invoking default exception handlers should be the same for both system-defined and programmer-defined default exceptions.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(d) the ability to define an exception handler for normal termination of an operation (ENDED).”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the need to provide a value for a function or expression when exiting a handler (the valued EXIT statement, e.g.EXIT (6));”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A compiler can verify that the handler for X does not attempt to resume F, and that the implementer of F does not make incorrect assumptions about whether F can or cannot be resumed after raising exceptions X or Y.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the notation presents an opportunity that is foreclosed by the other methods.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the ability to treat groups of exceptions identically before passing the exceptions to other handlers is important for notational conciseness”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.4 Exception Handling Hierarchies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The various situations in which exceptions are useful present different possibilities for resuming or terminating an operation.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.2 Control Flow Issues
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are definite advantages in having to examine all intervening programs to see how they are affected by the new exception, and the proposed notation forces such an examination to be carried out.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.4 Exception Handling Hierarchies
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(b) the need to deal with an exception first locally and then more globally (e.g.ESCAPE X from within a handler for X);”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a valued EXIT statement terminates a handler attached to a function body, the effect is the same as a normal return, e.g.F: PROCEDURE(... ) RETURNS(FIXED); END F; [OVERFLOW: EXIT (-1);] F returns the value --1 if this OVERFLOW handler is executed.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Default exceptions are notationally essential.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(4) Explicit invocation of default handlers.A programmer must be able to specify explicitly as well as implicitly whether a default handler is to be invoked or overridden, or whether the decision is to be made by a higher level handler.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the key advantage of the method proposed in this paper is that any of the various implementation techniques can be used, and in a properly supported system, a programmer will be able to specify with a compiler directive what method of im-plementation will be used for particular exceptions.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation neutrality 2 of the proposed notation is one of its most attractive properties, although admittedly, there are few or no systems in existence that would permit this property to be exploited.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Readability~simplicity~uniformity.The use of ES-CAPE-type exceptions to support multilevel loop exits in GOTO-free programming (ESCAPE to handlers associated with loops or statement groups);”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, status variables are appropriate for dealing with result classification exceptions, but since the status value methods require terminating an operation before the status value can be processed, this technique is not suitable for notifying or signaling.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.2 Control Flow Issues
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example shows that EXIT terminates the whole syntactic unit to which the handler is attached as well as the operation raising the exception.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Programmer-defined deJault handlers.It should be possible to establish default exceptions and handlers for programmer-defined subroutine packages; the concept of a default exception should not be limited to system-defined operations (addition, I/O, etc.)”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.3 Default Exception Handling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An EXIT from a handler attached to a procedure body is equivalent to a normal return from the procedure.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, t'L/I permits an invoker to resume or terminate any operation raising an exception, but it does not permit expressing constraints about whether termination or resumption is permitted or required.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.2 Control Flow Issues
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Parnas, D.L. Response to detected errors in well-structured programs. Dep. of Computer Sci., Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa., July 1972.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for the second requirement, the ability to pass an exception to a main program's environment, it is perfectly reasonable to provide a c o m m a n d for raising an exception in the main program's environment without first passing it up to the main program.”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.4 Exception Handling Hierarchies
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Moreover, exception handling actions can percolate up from an operation raising an exception until some invoker is found who is able to deal with the exception, or once the exception has reached the highest level, default handlers can be invoked successively from higher to lower levels until a default handier has successfully dealt with the exception (cf.[22, pp. 189-198]).”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > ENDPAGE ENDPAGE 693
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22, pp. 189-198]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(a) The ability to avoid explicit GOTOs to terminate an operation raising an exception: the need to express that a handler is being exited (the nonvalued EXIT statement)”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > Number 12
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
The full meaning of an exception is known only outside the operation that detects it, and that operation cannot by itself decide what should happen after the exception is raised.
“an exception's full significance is known only outside the detecting operation; the operation is not permitted to determine unilaterally what is to be done after an exception is raised”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Language-defined exceptions like OVERFLOW will be defined as default exceptions.
“I assume that languagedefined exceptions like OVERFLOW will be defined as default exceptions so a programmer does not have to provide an explicit handler for every operation able to raise such exceptions.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
“The notation for associating handlers with loops and subroutine calls is similar to that proposed by Bochmann [20] and Zahn [26].”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > References
“26. Knuth, D.E. Structured programming with goto statements. Comp. Surv. 6, 4 (Dec. 1974), 261-301.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > 3.1 Associating Exception Handlers With Operations
“The notation for associating handlers with loops and subroutine calls is similar to that proposed by Bochmann [20] and Zahn [26].”
§ Exception Handling: Issues and a Proposed Notation > References
“20. Homing, J.J., Lauer, H.C., Melliar-Smith, P.M. and Randell, B. A program structure for error detection and recovery. In Operating Systems, E. Gelenbe and C. Kaiser (Eds.), Springer- Verlag, New York, 1974, pp. 171-187.”
Citations
Cites
The Art of Computer Programming
Knuth, D. E. (1968) · Cited by 16,097
(2011) · doi:10.1007/springerreference_25828 · Cited by 1,200
The structure of the “THE”-multiprogramming system
Dijkstra, E. W. (1968) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/363095.363143 · Cited by 1,102
Programming with abstract data types
(1974) · doi:10.1145/800233.807045 · Cited by 735
A technique for software module specification with examples
Parnas, D. L. (1972) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355602.361309 · Cited by 726
Dijkstra, E. W. (1972) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355604.361591 · Cited by 705
Structured Programming with go to Statements
Knuth, D. E. (1974) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/356635.356640 · Cited by 678
(1942) · doi:10.2307/3028462 · Cited by 638
Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin
Kent, R. G., & Jespersen, O. (1923) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/313841 · Cited by 559
Golomb, S. W., & Baumert, L. D. (1965) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/321296.321300 · Cited by 498
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Woodger M., 1972, Proc. IFIP Congress 71, 402
- Parnas D.L., 1972, Pa.
- Hill I.D., 1972, ALGOL and FORTRAN. Computer J., 14, 3
- Noble J.M., 1969, Proc. 1FIP Congress 68, C78
- Homing J.J., 1974, Springer- Verlag, 171
- Organick E.L, 1972, Mass., 187
- 10.5555/647323.760249 · DOI
- Ross D.T., 1970, Academic Press, 91
- 10.5555/647323.721500 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 496
Exception Handling as a Social Concern
(2022) · doi:10.1109/mic.2022.3216272 · Cited by 4
Robust programs with filtered iterators
Shen, J., & Rinard, M. (2017) · ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE) · doi:10.1145/3136014.3136030 · Cited by 4
Demonstrating Exception Handling in JaCaMo
(2021) · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85739-4_28 · Cited by 4
Software development for reliable software systems
(1983) · doi:10.1016/0164-1212(83)90024-9 · Cited by 4
Learning Exceptions to Refine a Domain Expertise
(2009) · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-010-3.ch175 · Cited by 4
Design rationale for TELOS, a PASCAL-based AI language
(1977) · doi:10.1145/872736.806934 · Cited by 4
Exception Handling in an Event-Driven System
(2007) · doi:10.1109/ares.2007.85 · Cited by 4
Exception handlers in functional programming languages
(1993) · doi:10.1109/32.238585 · Cited by 4
Advanced Concepts in Asynchronous Exception Handling
(2011) · Cited by 4
Software reliability and design
(1976) · doi:10.1145/800146.804850 · Cited by 4
Applying Genetic Algorithms to Test JUH DBs Exceptions
(2013) · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2013.040702 · Cited by 4
Data-oriented exception handling in Ada
(2002) · doi:10.1109/iccl.1990.63765 · Cited by 3
Developing Systems that Handle Exceptions
(2005) · Cited by 3
An Examination of Issues with Exception Handling Mechanisms
(2007) · Cited by 3
Coordinating Access to Computation and Data in Distributed Systems
(2004) · Cited by 3
An axiomatic treatment of exception handling
(1982) · doi:10.1145/582153.582183 · Cited by 3
Towards evaluating the impact of data quality on service applications
Ivaki, N., Laranjeiro, N., & Vieira, M. P. A. (2013) · International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks workshops · doi:10.1109/dsnw.2013.6615509 · Cited by 3
(1977) · doi:10.1145/390019.808307 · Cited by 3
An Approach to Exception Handling for Service-Oriented Systems
(2006) · doi:10.1109/icws.2006.28 · Cited by 3
Exception Handling in a Flexible Cell Control System
(1997) · doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)42469-4 · Cited by 3
Towards Exception Handling in the SARL Agent Platform
(2023) · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37616-0_33 · Cited by 3
Kaijanaho, A.-J. (2014) · Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · Cited by 3
Task management in a multi-robot environment
(1997) · doi:10.1016/s0951-5240(97)00004-9 · Cited by 3
(1977) · doi:10.1145/390019.808316 · Cited by 3
(1983) · doi:10.1145/948101.948106 · Cited by 3
Exceptionally Monadic Error Handling
(2018) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.13430 · Cited by 3
The Green Language Exception System
(2004) · doi:10.1093/comjnl/47.6.651 · Cited by 3
Language Constructs for C++-like languages Tools and extensions
(2009) · Cited by 2
Separating Exceptional Concerns
(2012) · Cited by 2
The case for exception handling
(2004) · Cited by 2
Abnormal Events Handling for Dependable Embedded Systems
(2006) · doi:10.1109/enc.2006.3 · Cited by 2
Zero-Overhead Lexical Effect Handlers
Ma, C., Ge, Z., Jung, M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3763177 · Cited by 2
Filtered Iterators For Safe and Robust Programs in RIFL
Shen, J., & Rinard, M. (2015) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Finite-State Modeling, Analysis and Testing of System Vulnerabilities.
(2004) · Cited by 2
Context-oriented exception handling
(2009) · doi:10.1504/ijhpsa.2009.030095 · Cited by 2
Framework for exercising I/O exception handling code
(2008) · doi:10.1504/ijict.2008.024002 · Cited by 2
Li, R., Chen, B., Zhang, F., Sun, C., & Peng, X. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) · doi:10.1109/saner53432.2022.00053 · Cited by 3
Exception Handling in Object-Orienteda Databases
(2001) · doi:10.1007/3-540-45407-1_15 · Cited by 2
Improving exception handling with recommendations
(2014) · doi:10.1145/2591062.2591087 · Cited by 2
(1982) · doi:10.1109/mc.1982.1654000 · Cited by 2
KRTM - A Kernel Which Supports Real Time Multiprograms
(1980) · doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)65156-5 · Cited by 2
Uniform handling of exceptions in a stack based language
(1977) · doi:10.1145/954604.954610 · Cited by 2
Structuring software systems for fault tolerance
(1983) · doi:10.2514/6.1983-2322 · Cited by 2
Exceptions in OO Languages: Using Them and Reasoning about Them
(2000) · doi:10.1007/10722060_22 · Cited by 1
(1977) · doi:10.1145/390018.808315 · Cited by 1
A Safe, Efficient Object Database Interface Using Batched Futures
(1994) · Cited by 1
Leave and recall: Primitives for procedural programming
Thimbleby, H. W. (1980) · Software Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.4380100204 · Cited by 1
Suggestions about a specification technique
(1978) · doi:10.1145/954587.954589 · Cited by 1
Modern features for systems programming languages
(2006) · doi:10.1145/1185448.1185599 · Cited by 1
DAEH: A Tool for Specifying and Monitoring the Exception Handling Policy
Abrantes, J., Coelho, R. D. S., & Bonifácio, R. (2015) · International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1142/s0218194015400306 · Cited by 1
Dependable composition of Web services
(2005) · Cited by 1
Mastering global exceptions with policy-aware recommendations
(2015) · doi:10.5555/2819009.2819165 · Cited by 1
Coupled resolution engines for programming knowledge based systems in logic
Taylor, H. (1989) · Cited by 1
Fex: A Model Checking Framework for Event Sequences
(2008) · doi:10.7939/r34m91c40 · Cited by 1
Programing languages for reliable computing systems
(1979) · doi:10.1007/bfb0014680 · Cited by 1
A Reconsideration of the Recovery Block Scheme
(1985) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-82470-8_8 · Cited by 1
Exception-handling extension for an object-oriented DBMS
(2002) · doi:10.1109/ideas.1997.625669 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodenough, J. B.
- Affiliations
- SofTech, Inc., Waltham, MA
- Corresponding author
- Goodenough, John B.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1975-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 683-696
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2071136304
- Semantic Scholar
- 5300f92dba234f183230d656a4dc16d9cbda9f73
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 15.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- exception handling, programming language features, language design, error recovery
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
