Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> > Hi, it's me again. Not to be a pain, but RFC 88 does say:
>
> Hey, no pain.
>
> > retry
>
> I do recall seeing this quote; however, replacing AUTOLOAD is a very
> specific instance of resuming from or retrying a fault condition. And
> even though a retry mechanism could be generalized from AUTOLOAD to
> handling other conditions, it was not at all clear that RFC 88 actually
> is proposing a feature called retry, that would do any sort of resume.
To clarify, 88 is trying to say that it explicitly doesn't think it's
a good idea to mix up the concept of exception handling with the concept
of continuations, the latter of which is properly the domain of concepts
like resume. (Pardon me sir, do you have a copy of your resume? Why
yes, responds the Perl programmer, next.)
> If that was your intention, you need to add lots of beef to the "retry"
> method of the "Exception" class, or somewhere, to describe how to use
> it. When I read this quote, I thought it was just general discussion,
> and that that the remark about implementing retry "should use
> continuations" implied that this RFC was not (presently) including such
> a mechanism as part of it.
Right. Not presently and against the concept. That's for continuations.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
