Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 08:43 PM 8/19/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >Peter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > die
> > > > > If argument is anything else, raise a run-time
> > > > > exception.
> > > >
> > > > So this probably shouldn't be the case.
> > >
> > > This sounds alright; there's something very self-defeating
> > > about raising a run-time exception from dying badly, if you
> > > see what I mean.
> >
> >Yes! That's why v1 of RFC 88 didn't do that. Thanks, Dave.
>
> Hmm, does this affect the idea of throw on an object that isn't an
> exception being a run-time error? I hope not. throw and die
> shouldn't have the list-joining behavior in common.
But, since throw is a class/object method, how can throw Foo;
effect a run-time error? By definition, if you're throwing
an Exception you're throwing an Exception. How Exception class
throw mechanisms connect to die must, in the end, be up to them.
After all, if you're simulating a game, you could C<throw Ball;>.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
