Tony Olekshy wrote:
> There you have it. That's why RFC 88 uses structured data for $@.
That's a good argument, one that I have no quarrel with. As an
enhancement to eval/die, this would make it more flexible for checking
conditions. And with appropriate stringification, it is upward
compatib
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> These three recent postings expressing ways to implement the
> differences between RFC 119 and RFC 88 are encouraging. With a
> bit of syntactic sugar, it looks like RFC 88 can be made to handle
> all the cases I care about. Now if you'd just get rid of that
> "try"...
To use a $20 OO word, polymorphism. But this applies even if
$@ isn't an instance of an OO class, as explained herein.
If die/throw can put any data they want in $@, then before a
exception can be conditionally caught, the value of $@ must be
checked to see if it conforms to the intended check.
