On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:23:20AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 10:14 AM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >Graham Barr wrote:
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
> > > If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use
> > >
> > > catch
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > Graham Barr wrote:
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
> > > If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use
> > >
> > > catch {
> > > if () {
> > > }
> > > else {
> > >
At 10:14 AM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Graham Barr wrote:
> >
> > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
> > If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use
> >
> > catch {
> > if () {
> > }
> > else {
> > # rethrow the error
>
Graham Barr wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
> If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use
>
> catch {
> if () {
> }
> else {
> # rethrow the error
> }
> }
Then you will be glad to know that RFC 88, in the n
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
> because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
> who meant to say catch Foo {}? And what happens when someone
> says catch "Foo", "Bar" {}?
>
> We can't
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 11:04 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
> > because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
> > who meant to say catch Foo {}?
>
> This is a good point, but I'm not about to concede
As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
who meant to say catch Foo {}? And what happens when someone
says catch "Foo", "Bar" {}?
We can't just say that catch Foo {} and catch "Foo" {} are the
same thing, or that
At 11:04 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
>because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
>who meant to say catch Foo {}?
This is a good point, but I'm not about to concede an extra keyword
:-) Let's look at som
