John Porter wrote:
> ...I think an OO syntax would be better. You know, something like
>
> try {
> cough "outa here";
>
> catch {
> matawba => { sustain; },
> ebola => { overrule; },
> { punt; }
> }
> }
Heh, that's not OO-like syntax! That's a switch statement! :-(
Maybe this is "OO":
attempt = new Try { cough "outa here"; };
attempt.catch( matawba => { sustain } );
attempt.catch( ebola => { overrule } );
attempt.catch( { punt } );
attempt.try();
Off I go...
--
John Porter
Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searchi... Dan Sugalski
- errors and their keywords and where catch can return t... David L. Nicol
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can retu... Peter Scott
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can retu... Dan Sugalski
- English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Bart Lateur
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Dan Sugalski
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Nathan Torkington
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Stephen P. Potter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Tony Olekshy
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Glenn Linderman
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
