On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Peter Scott wrote (with >):
[what is the purpose of having an explicit 'try']
> Well, for one, it makes it easier to see that a block is subject to
> exception handling if all you have to do is look at the beginning for 'try'
> rather than scan through it for a 'catch'.
A good point.
> And there's the issue Jonathan Scott Duff raised, which is that the
> question of which catch blocks will be applied in what order is
> non-obvious to the user, even though there may be a well-defined
> interpretation.
I disagree with this point. Catch blocks should simply be
applied in the order written. If you have a "floating" catch block--i.e.,
one that isn't connected to anything that throws an exception--then you
have some code that will never run. No big deal, and possibly useful as
yet another option for Multi-Line-Comments.
For example (I'm redoing this from memory, so forgive me if it's
not exact):
catch Baseball {A}
Quarterback(); # throws FootBall
catch Football {B}
In this example, B would be called and A wouldn't. OTOH:
catch Baseball {A}
Pitcher(); # throws Baseball
catch Football {B}
A Baseball exception would be thrown but not caught. No problem.
Dave
