Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
Here's a simple test for resumable exceptions that I'm trying
to get to work. I'm probably coding/understanding something wrong,
so any suggestions or pointers would be greatly appreciated.
.sub main :main
push_eh catcher
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
What I'm trying to do is to test the ability to resume after
exceptions thrown by Cfoo. The Cmain sub above sets up
a handler to catch exceptions, then calls Cfoo. The handler
simply resumes any exception that is caught. The Cfoo sub
prints 'ok 1', throws an
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:06:46PM +, Daniel Hulme wrote:
: What happens if a resumable exception is propagated through a block with
: a LEAVE, KEEP, or UNDO block? S04 seems to be a bit vague on this point.
: It strikes me that what we want it to do is not execute them when the
: exception is
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:01:13AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
I don't see a problem here. I think you maybe missed the bit that says:
A CCATCH block sees the lexical scope in which it was defined, but
its caller is the dynamic location that threw the exception. That is,
the stack
I was involved in the C++ standardization process, and argued for
resumption as opposed to termination only in exceptions. I was somewhat
of a pioneer, implementing C++ exceptions for my team to use before
commercial compilers had them. After all, why start a new project with
an old
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:51:24PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: Anyway, as passionate as I was about resumption, or at least making it
: not impossible to implement resumption, at the next ANSI meeting the
: terminate-only camp made compelling arguments.
Well, interestingly, I used to be in
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:59:02PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: Are Parrot exceptions now, in fact, resumable? If they are, is that
: important? Is anyone actually resuming execution after exception handlers
: are called? I think we _can_ keep resumability, but I'm not sure I want us
: to,
