[Info-vax] Unexpected error using ZIP for OpenVMS

[AEF]

On Dec 20, 12:15 am, Steven Schweda <sms.antin... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So this is an "expected error." If the error is expected,
> > than the program was expecting it. Therefore, the program was
> > expecting the user to make this error. And that means there
> > can be only one expected error. Any other error, or lack of
> > error, would be unexpected.
>
>    To me, this is utter nonsense.  A user can specify

That was my point.

> different files which present different problems, for
> example, a Zip archive spec might be a: 1) Non-existent
> file, 2) File which the user has no permission to read, 3)
> File which is not really a Zip archive, 4) Truncated or
> otherwise damaged Zip archive, ...  Possibilities abound.
>
>    Who said that the _program_, and not its user, expected an
> error (or anything else)?

1) If the user were to expect any of the above errors (1 thru 4), why
wouldn't he fix the problem before running the code? Therefore, I
assumed it must be the programmer.

2) Didn't you have a hand in writing the code? So when you talk about
expecting or not expecting an error, I assume you're talking from the
programmer's point of view.

3) One complicating factor is the fact that I have several times
encountered error messages that say, "unexpected error . . . " So I
thought there's some kind of creature called an "unexpected error."
And now this thread comes along, and doesn't exactly help matters any!
Maybe you never encountered such a creature.

There you have three reasons why.

>    The program, whether or not it "expects" anything,
> attempts to perform certain operations, and (ideally) reports
> problems when it encounters them.  The user might expect the
> program to do what it is told to do, when that is possible.
> The user might expect the program to complain when it can't
> do something which is not possible.  The user might _not_
> expect the program to complain when it can't do something
> which _is_ (or should be) possible.  Please stop me when this
> gets too complicated.

Why would the user not want the code to complain? How else will the
user know something went wrong?

> > But the code *can't* read it. Shouldn't the code tell you
> > it can't read it and say why? And if it does, which it did,
> > what makes it unexpected?
>
>    Did _you_ expect this error?  The original complainer (and
> I) did not.

If I expect that running a program will produce an error, I try to do
something about it first. So in this sense, all errors are unexpected,
in which case the whole concept becomes meaningless.

> >  Isn't this really an "unexpected bug"? And if so, who
> > cares?
>
>    Which bugs _are_ expected?  The error message (caused by

The ones you claim cause the "unexpected errors"! Never mind.

> that bug) was unexpected (by the original complainer and by
> me).  Who cares if there's a bug?  Uh, _I_ do?  Other users
> might.  (_You_ might be too busy to care, but I can think of
> some ways in which you might free up some time for useful
> pursuits.)

I meant who cares if it's an expected or unexpected bug. It's a bug
and it needs to be fixed.

> > Maybe they teach this in computer science classes.
>
>    I don't know.  I never took one.
>
> >  I trained to be a physicist.
>
>    So did I, but it didn't turn me into a drooling idiot, or
> otherwise cause me to misinterpret perfectly simple
> declarative sentences with obvious meanings.

Really? If you're going to be insulting, at least make it funny. I'm
sorry my writing skills are not the best, but I do try.

Calling it a "puzzling" error would make sense, not an "unexpected"
error.

AEF