At 12:22 PM 8/12/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 07:07:18AM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > I also submitted RFC 96, which tries to address the stuff that
> > is needed for extending beyond builtins while maintaining a
> > standard Perl OO implementation and seperating the exception
> > handling stuff from the exception class. Rereading RFC 80, I
> > realize that they are closer than I thought, each emphasising
> > different aspects of the problem.
>
>I've read this thread with some interest and I'm puzzled by something.
>Why are "objects" and "exceptions" always mentioned in the same
>breath? Does one need objects to have exceptions?
Pretty much. It screams O-O for these reasons:
An exception is an 'error'. That's already a vague concept.
An error has text associated with it, but also a bunch of other attributes.
They fall naturally into different classes, some of which have subclasses
(a File error is-a IO error).
Users want to define their own kinds while reusing the semantics of the
base class.
Bingo.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
