Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> I don't think we should assume that we can't scratch our nose without
> getting overly object-happy. For the particular aspect I'm driving at
> there is no *need* for objects of any kind, no catch, no throw, no
> structured exceptions: I want the program simply to _die_. I'm not
> against someone else providing higher level ways handle/trap/propagate
> those croakings, be the way procedural or OO or what is the rave du
> jour. Don't get me wrong: for some purposes and somtimes I like
> structured warnings. But what I am proposing is very low-level, it's
> below the level of Perl the language, actually. Think of it as a
> cleaned-up consistent wrapping of the current C library APIs. If
> somebody wants to further wrap these failures into something nicer,
> okay, I have no problem with that.
Agreed. I can even imagine that system functions would, via die,
put some simple data structure in $@ and @@, but whenever these
values are read, the are seamlessly and internally promoted to
first-class Exception objects. This way, the guts see internal
exceptions as simple data structures, and the user code sees
all exceptions as simple objects.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
