Tony Olekshy wrote:
> If we take this approach then when you just want to casually say
>
> my $f = open $file; always { close $f };
>
> you can. I like that. In addition, when you want to carefully ...
How about "later" instead of "always"
Because: "later" is a time in the future, but
At 03:56 PM 2/12/2001 -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > [...] I wasn't talking about try{}/finally{} stuff. I was talking
> > about DESTROY (or its equivalent) for objects, which unfortunately
> > can't be tied to any one particular place in the code.
>
>and, from another thr
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> 2. Support always and except blocks. These constructs may be used
> without requiring a try before the block. They are dynamic
> operations which only come into play when they are encountered
> in the block, in run-time order.
...
> If we take this approach
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Traditionally Perl has had both the "do" and the "eval" block
> forms, the latter which traps, the former which doesn't.
In the perl 5 pocket reference 3rd edition page 63, it claims that $@ is
set to the result of an eval or do. How does this impact exception
handling tes
At 06:35 PM 2/13/01 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > This may be a naive question, but what is the benefit - aside from
> > consistency, and we don't need to rehash the litany on that - to AUTOLOAD
> > getting called for DESTROY? I've never actually seen any code that makes
> > use of it. I hav
At 10:32 AM 2/13/2001 -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
>>Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
>> > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
>> > like any other method.
>>The idea is [for Larry]
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 10:32:26AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> >Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> > > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> > > like any other method.
> >The i
At 10:35 AM 2/13/01 -0800, I wrote:
>I think you'll find this addressed already in RFCs 70, 80, and 151. At
>least, that was my intention.
Urp, poorly worded. Should be, "my intention in the two RFCs out of these
three that I wrote." Don't want to appear to be trying to claim credit for
RFC
At 03:27 PM 2/13/01 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>I fear I'm not adding anything apart from noise to this debate.
>(partly from not having thought through the issues completely, partly by
>not reading the full archives for the list from last year)
>
>On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony
At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> > like any other method.
>The idea is [for Larry] to declare "no, it isn't". Otherwise, you have to
>do
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
>
> I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> like any other method.
Yes, its a classic autoloader mistake
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > James Mastros wrote:
> > >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
[Note: that's a hypothetical quote.]
> I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> l
> James Mastros wrote:
>
> >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
like any other method.
--
John Porter
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Branden wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm working on the PDD for par. I would like to propose a standard directory
> structure for the files inside the archive, but I realise this depends
> greatly upon the directory structure of Perl itself.
>
> How does Perl 5 manage its directory
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:55 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >It's pretty hard (for me) to think of when you'd want an AUTOLOADed DESTROY,
> >since if you create /any/ objects of the class, DESTROY will be called.
> >"It isn't possible to AUT
At 05:55 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:33:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >package foo;
> >use attrs qw(cleanup_sub);
> >
> > would be nice, but I don't know that he'll go for it. (Though it's the
> only
> > way I can think of to avoid AUTOLOAD bei
Hello.
I'm working on the PDD for par. I would like to propose a standard directory
structure for the files inside the archive, but I realise this depends
greatly upon the directory structure of Perl itself.
How does Perl 5 manage its directory structure?
Suppose $PERL is the base directory whe
> Related
>
> Jarkko would really like
>
> print "Foo\n";
>
> in a void context to behave as
>
> print "Foo\n" or die $!;
Not just basic I/O but anything 'system': pipe(), system(), opendir(),
mkdir(), chdir(), fork(), socket(), and so on.
> I think that it would be nice in 5.8 to (optio
I fear I'm not adding anything apart from noise to this debate.
(partly from not having thought through the issues completely, partly by
not reading the full archives for the list from last year)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> unwind-protect a reality. As a resu
Branden wrote:
>
> There's something I didn't quite understand about RFC 88:
>
> When I
>
> try {
> die "foo";
> } catch {
> die "bar";
> }
>
> I die with "bar", right? But what happens if I
>
> try {
> die "foo";
> } finally {
> die "bar";
Branden wrote:
> And I'll probably ask you to use another naming/extension, like pp5 (par for
> perl 5), so that modules for both versions don't get mixed up (since they'll
> be incompatible).
That doesn't make sense. Either your script or your archive
tool (par, pun, or CPAN or whatever
There's something I didn't quite understand about RFC 88:
When I
try {
die "foo";
} catch {
die "bar";
}
I die with "bar", right? But what happens if I
try {
die "foo";
} finally {
die "bar";
}
I die with "foo" or "bar" ? Why is this the
22 matches
Mail list logo
