Jeff Clites writes:
> >Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
> >disentangle
> >itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
> >able
> >to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do <C>&block
> >.=
> >{ more_stuff(); };</C> is way up on my list...)
>
> I've wanted to do that sort of thing before, but it seems simpler
> (conceptually and practically) to build up an array of cleanup
> subs/blocks to execute in sequence, rather than to have a .= for
> blocks. (Another reason it's handy to keep them separate is in cases in
> which each needs to return some information--maybe a status which
> determines whether to proceed, etc.)
But this is already supported, in its most powerful form:
wrap &block: { call; other_stuff() }
Luke
