Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> > I do recall seeing this quote; however, replacing AUTOLOAD is a very
> > specific instance of resuming from or retrying a fault condition. And
> > even though a retry mechanism could be generalized from AUTOLOAD to
> > handling other conditions, it was not at all clear that RFC 88 actually
> > is proposing a feature called retry, that would do any sort of resume.
>
> To clarify, 88 is trying to say that it explicitly doesn't think it's
> a good idea to mix up the concept of exception handling with the concept
> of continuations, the latter of which is properly the domain of concepts
> like resume. (Pardon me sir, do you have a copy of your resume? Why
> yes, responds the Perl programmer, next.)
> Right. Not presently and against the concept. That's for continuations.
So you just have a slightly different level of "fatal" than I do, and you
have a slightly different level of "when do you need a separate mechanism"
than I do. But in fact, you do consider there to be fatal error conditions
that mechanisms proposed by RFC 88 should not handle.
However, because you are enamored of past misuse of the fatal error mechanism
to handle non-fatal errors, you want to perpetuate and build upon that misuse
and continue to handle non-fatal errors via that mechanism, and include some,
but not all, fatal errors, via that mechanism.
--
Glenn
=
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
_NetZero Free Internet Access and Email__
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
