Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.

[Tony Olekshy]

Peter Scott wrote:
> 
> But surely you have to be consistent.  I understood Chaim's point to be
> that he wanted no exceptions if he didn't ask for them.  If the core
> currently dies where it could return and set $!, then it is being
> inconsistent, since this is not an error that prevents perl from
> continuing.

But, for simple scripts, Perl's inconsistency I just what I like.
I'm not sure, but I think Chaim's main point was just that, not
that divide-by-zero should be ignored too.

> How can Chaim or anyone else write a program and know
> that it won't die if we allow such things to continue?

What we allow doesn't matter.  No-one can write a program and know
that it won't die, unless all the code pre-checks or traps every
++$i that might cause an integer overflow.  If you want to ignore
that too, then I don't care how you do that, because I don't want
to ignore it unless *I* say eval { ++$i }.  Just don't make what-
ever you come up with the default, ok ;-)

Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy