Glenn Linderman wrote:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
Hi, it's me again. Not to be a pain, but RFC 88 does say:
Hey, no pain.
retry
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
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
Tony Olekshy wrote:
Glenn Linderman wrote:
Just to point out that fatal is, indeed, as several people keep
saying, truly in the eye of the catcher.
That said, none of the currently proposed mechanisms permit
"resume from fault" semantics, much less "resume from hardware
fault"
"BSOD" = huh? Oh, Blue Screen of Death.
Certainly if the OS doesn't support trapping an error, then the language running on it
cannot either. But if the OS does, then the language could. If the language could,
then the question remains whether it should, and that's a -language topic that
--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
...; exit ( 250 );" instead of "die ...;" like they do today. [Tongue
firmly planted
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Markus Peter wrote:
There is no such thing as an ultimately fatal error - it should
always be up to the user of a module wether the program should
die, but I guess you see that the same and will answer me with
"use eval" then ;-)
I hope you're speaking from a
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:48 AM 8/24/00 +0200, Markus Peter wrote:
--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
...; exit ( 250
Glenn Linderman wrote:
Just to point out that fatal is, indeed, as several people keep
saying, truly in the eye of the catcher.
That said, none of the currently proposed mechanisms permit
"resume from fault" semantics, much less "resume from hardware
fault" semantics. Sounds like good RFC
