At 10:56 PM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>PS> At 07:00 PM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >> Perhaps, throw can carry a return value?
> >>
> >> throw {"return value"} $exception;
> >> If there is an active try/catch context the
> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PS> At 07:00 PM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> Perhaps, throw can carry a return value?
>>
>> throw {"return value"} $exception;
>> If there is an active try/catch context then the $exception would
>> be propogated, otherwise $@ would
At 07:00 PM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>Perhaps, throw can carry a return value?
>
> throw {"return value"} $exception;
>If there is an active try/catch context then the $exception would
>be propogated, otherwise $@ would get loaded with $exception and
>the return value would be t
Perhaps, throw can carry a return value?
throw {"return value"} $exception;
If there is an active try/catch context then the $exception would
be propogated, otherwise $@ would get loaded with $exception and
the return value would be the specified value.
If not specified then it would be
At 03:40 PM 8/16/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>Well, those of you writing "exception" RFCs be sure and include this
>example in there somewhere (if it's relevant to your RFC of course).
Done.
>I'm done thinking about exceptions now.
Some of us are hoping to do the same RSN :-)
--
Peter
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:52:07PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 09:29 AM 8/16/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >Let me draw another picture (with "try" and "catch" this time):
> >
> > try {
> > # code that may cause exceptions
> > } catch {
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:42:24PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 10:16 AM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >One issue that haven't seen addressed, is how to _not_ have exceptions.
> >
> >I want to use a core module (non-core can do anything they want) but
> >I'd like to write it in procedura
At 09:29 AM 8/16/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>Let me draw another picture (with "try" and "catch" this time):
>
> try {
> # code that may cause exceptions
> } catch { # catches ALL exceptions
> switch ($@->^_) {
>
At 10:16 AM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>One issue that haven't seen addressed, is how to _not_ have exceptions.
>
>I want to use a core module (non-core can do anything they want) but
>I'd like to write it in procedural mode.
>
> try {
> $obj->method...
> }
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:59:40PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Problem 1:
>
> In a large lexical scope, you have no preindication that intended
> non-local flow control is in effect until you read all the way to
> the end of the scope. The equivalent of your example in more human-
> friendly te
> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Using exceptions for failure signalling is a more robust software
TO> engineering technique, but only if your exception handling mechanism
TO> doesn't "encourage" you to drop exceptions of the floor.
Is this proven or just an assertion o
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I have come to dislike the name `exception', its too long for me :)
> and who says we have to copy everyone else.
>
> Lookin in the thesaurus we get
>
> [Nouns] nonconformity [more]; unconformity, disconformity;
> unconventionality, informality, ab
I have moved this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Okay, imagine something for me:
>
> # some code here that may cause an exception
> exceptions {# when thrown, we end up here
> switch ($@->^_) {
> case canFoo { ... }
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 06:23:57PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with just using the switch statement? It seems
> > like except and catch are becoming special-purpose switches
> > to me. Is it really necessary?
>
> It's not necessary, but it is th
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:47:03AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 10:56:36AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > try { }
> > > catch SomeException { }
> > > catch SomeOtherException { }
> > >
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:51:24PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Could be. I'd be interested in seeing non-OOP proposals that do what I
> > want exceptions to do, I have a hard time imagining one.
>
> Well, what is it that you want exceptions t
16 matches
Mail list logo
