Wiggins d'Anconia wrote: > Peter Rabbitson wrote: > [snip] > > Either way there shouldn't be a need for eval unless you have raise > error on, but in that case you should catch the exception with [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > http://danconia.org > > >>Thanks for the feedback >> >>Peter >> > >
Just as a side note... this is really a stylistic or idiomatic argument. Syntactically or execution wise there is not anything technically wrong with the code, that I saw. My argument stems completely from the "*it seems* this is what The Perl Community/Tim Bunce intended" but that is merely a guess based on the API, and the docs: http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.48/DBI.pm#RaiseError And I am really only posing it as "feedback" as you requested rather than a disagreement. I suspect from a readability/maintenance standpoint as a fellow developer I would prefer the normal eval/if $@ idiom simply because I would recognize it more readily than how you have it coded. Having said that, I use my own wrapper module that throws my own brand of exception, so I really use none of the idioms :-). But that is merely a preference and I don't expect other developers to like/dislike it :-). http://danconia.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
