On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:23:20AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > At 10:14 AM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: > >Graham Barr wrote: > > > > > > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch. > > > If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use > > > > > > catch { > > > if (<expr>) { > > > } > > > else { > > > # rethrow the error > > > } > > > } > > > >Then you will be glad to know that RFC 88, in the not quite ready > >version two release, allows you do to just that. > > "Allows" isn't the same as "should be the only way" though. > > Graham, did you base your opinion on usability, parseability, both, neither? Probably both along with simplicity, ie keeping the language simple. Graham.
- RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo&qu... Tony Olekshy
- Structured exception handling should be ... Graham Barr
- Structured exception handling shoul... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception handli... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception ha... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception ha... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception ha... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception ha... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception ha... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception ha... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception ha... Tom Christiansen
- Re: Structured exception ha... Peter Scott