Gads, people, I can barely go to the bathroom without getting behind on this discussion, let alone head out for a few hours to pick up a new laptop :-) I'll try to catch up. At 07:25 PM 8/22/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >Throw can't take no arguments because its a constructor, not a function. throw is a constructor right now, but we don't need to stop us from suggesting it do something that constructors can't if there's a good case for it. However, I don't see a good enough case for an argument-less try. If there were one, it would be that it was the same as throw $@. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Brust, Corwin
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Peter Scott
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Tony Olekshy
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Brust, Corwin
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Tony Olekshy
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Brust, Corwin
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Tony Olekshy
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Peter Scott
- RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Brust, Corwin
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Tony Olekshy
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Peter Scott
- Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list. Tony Olekshy