Jeff Clites writes: > >Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to > >disentangle > >itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be > >able > >to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do <C>&block > >.= > >{ more_stuff(); };</C> is way up on my list...) > > I've wanted to do that sort of thing before, but it seems simpler > (conceptually and practically) to build up an array of cleanup > subs/blocks to execute in sequence, rather than to have a .= for > blocks. (Another reason it's handy to keep them separate is in cases in > which each needs to return some information--maybe a status which > determines whether to proceed, etc.)
But this is already supported, in its most powerful form: wrap &block: { call; other_stuff() } Luke