On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:28:05PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > No, it wouldn't, really. We could make "use fatal;" scoped, so that the > quit op (or whatever it is) only jumps through all its hoops if the > pragma's in effect. If its not, then quit(foo, bar, baz) does a bare return > and that's it. > > You'd have the overhead of checking a flag when actually quitting with an > error, but that adds a very small amount of overhead to an exceptional case. Why not make that flag avaliable instead of having a new op ? The user can then write $^fatal ? die .... : return; Hm, although people may start to mis-use the flag. Graham.
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searchi... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Se... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versionin... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versi... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Bennett Todd
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Bennett Todd
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module ... Dan Sugalski
- errors and their keywords and wh... David L. Nicol
- Re: errors and their keywords an... Peter Scott
- Re: errors and their keywords an... Dan Sugalski
- English language basis for "... David L. Nicol
- Re: English language basis for &... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: English language basis for &... Bart Lateur
- Re: English language basis for &... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: English language basis for &... Dan Sugalski
- Re: English language basis for &... John Porter