Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can return to and stuff like that

[Peter Scott]

At 03:30 PM 8/13/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:


>Whose RFC deals with this?

63, 70, 80, 88 and 96.  There would appear to be a groundswell of interest :-)

The mailing list for discussing this is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>Further discussion in the thread discussed the idea of returning
>to the point of throwing, as the routine noting the error might
>be supposed to ignore this error, the author of this comment
>(Bennett Todd?) implied that that is how throwing and catching
>is supposed to work.

I disagree.  It should never be possible to ignore an exception, except by 
making it painfully obvious:

try {
   # fragile code which doesn't call any subroutines that might die
   # and doesn't include any other try blocks
} catch {
   # No code at all
}

If there are apparently good reasons for ignoring certain exceptions there 
should be a better solution.  It probably should have been optional for the 
exception to have been thrown in the first place.


--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies