Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Benjamin Goldberg:
> # Concievably, we could then examine the exception, and maybe decide
> # that it was nonfatal, and resume execution from just after the place
> # it was thrown from.
>
> The problem with that is that some exceptions are unresumable. For
> example, exceptions thrown in C code are difficult to resume from,
> especially if they represent e.g. a segfault. Exceptions that
> represent things like a file failing to open can be difficult to
> handle if they're thrown from an inner routine--you'd need to know
> where to put the replacement filehandle.
>
> Perhaps there can be an Exception::Resumable that inherits from both
> Exception and Continuation, but I don't think that normal exceptions
> can or should be resumable.
I thought that warnings were to be implemented as exceptions... in which
case, our exception handler (warning handler) needs to choose whether to
resume execution at the place that the warning was produced, or to die,
or... something.
Should the "raise" opcode produce resumable exceptions?
--
$a=24;split//,240513;s/\B/ => /for@@=qw(ac ab bc ba cb ca
);{push(@b,$a),($a-=6)^=1 for 2..$a/6x--$|;print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]\n";((6<=($a-=6))?$a+=$_[$a%6]-$a%6:($a=pop @b))&&redo;}
