Jenda writes:
> Well ... what about just ... making the eval{} block smaller?
>
> eval {
> # Code where an error may occur
> exception_causing_method();
> };
> if ($@) { ... }
> # Code where I want to resume after handling the exception
> print "Continuing....\n";
Let's assume I'm trying to write a generalized resumptive error
handler. I don't have control over what the eval block (or
equivalent) will be, nor do I know how to modify its contents.
> Another thing ... what EXACTLY do you mean by "resume with
> next statement". Say your eval{} block called function Foo(), which
> called Bar(). And somewhere in the middle of Bar() occured an
> exception.Do you want to continue with Bar(). Go back into Foo()
> just below he call to Bar()? Go to the line of the eval{} block below
> the call to Foo() ?
> I guess the last one, but ...
The first: continue with the next line after where the exception was
triggered, such that all state in any current functions is the same.
> Anyway to tell the truth you could do this :
>
> eval {
> print "Ahoj\n";
> $y = 0;
> $x = 1/$y;
> LEJBL: print "Cau\n";
> };
> if ($@) {
> print "ERROR: $@\n";
> goto LEJBL;
> }
That's closer, but is it possible without inserting a label or using
a goto? Assume the code that might trigger the error (the eval block
or equivalent) is given to me.
> P.S.: You come from VB? "On Error Resume Next", "On Error
> Goto errHandler" and "Resume Next" ... I've never got used to that
> crazy way of doing things.
No, I've never used VB. I'm just looking into doing resumptions in
Perl....
+ Richard
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
