Peter Scott wrote:
> Yes, we get breakage; the user expects die to be trapped by eval.
It still would be.
> Users of
> Error.pm also expect it to be trapped by catch.
It still would be, if you 'use Error.pm'.
> I do not think we should
> maintain die/eval as a separate mechanism from try/catch;
I do, unless some fancy footwork is done to avoid accidentally catching fatal
errors in catch-all clauses. And that makes for added complexity.
> I think they
> should be synonymous for interoperation (so users aren't forced to migrate
> an entire application from one method to the other just because one module
> uses the other method).
Handle this with wrapper modules if needed. And see if p52p6 can convert
standard uses of Try.pm and Error.pm to the new mechanism, to avoid the need
for most of the wrapper modules.
> This means that die can be trapped by catch, and
> that throw can be trapped by eval.
Blecch. Orthogonality of the mechanisms is easier to understand than funny
rules, special cases, and syntactical magic.
> --
> Peter Scott
> Pacific Systems Design Technologies
--
Glenn
=====
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
