Stephen Weeks wrote:
Commit 31294 implements this behavior. Can I get confirmation that it's
correct?
Just looked over the diff. Perfect. Thanks!
Allison
Not long ago, Stephen Weeks proclaimed...
> Not long ago, Allison Randal proclaimed...
> > Apologies if my comments on this thread and update to the exceptions PDD
> > weren't clear. The resume continuation should continue to live within
> > the exception object, not be passed as a separate argu
Not long ago, Allison Randal proclaimed...
> Stephen Weeks wrote:
> >
> >This has now been committed to trunk. I'm pretty sure that I updated
> >every exception handler in the tree.
>
> Apologies if my comments on this thread and update to the exceptions PDD
> weren't clear. The resume continua
Stephen Weeks wrote:
This has now been committed to trunk. I'm pretty sure that I updated
every exception handler in the tree.
Apologies if my comments on this thread and update to the exceptions PDD
weren't clear. The resume continuation should continue to live within
the exception object
Not long ago, Stephen Weeks proclaimed...
> Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
> > Personally I like the idea that "any PMC can be thrown as an
> > exception", which would seem to argue against forcing resume
> > continuations into the thrown PMC (which might not have a slot
> > for the
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:14:24PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> Okay, PDD cleaned up. The code to directly support throwing any
> arbitrary type would require significant circumlocution (read:
> inefficient, difficult to maintain), so it's not desirable.
> [...]
> But, an individual HLL ca
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
PDD23:67 has:
: =item B>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC. Active exception
: handlers (if any) will be invoked with I as the only parameter.
:
:
: =item B [ , I ]>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC after taking
: a continua
Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
> Personally I like the idea that "any PMC can be thrown as an
> exception", which would seem to argue against forcing resume
> continuations into the thrown PMC (which might not have a slot
> for them). So, rather than saying that anything thrown as
PDD23:67 has:
: =item B>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC. Active exception
: handlers (if any) will be invoked with I as the only parameter.
:
:
: =item B [ , I ]>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC after taking
: a continuation at the next opcode. When
