Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 08:43 PM 8/19/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >Peter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > die
> > > > > If argument is anything else, raise a run-time
> > > > > exception.
> > > >
> > > > So this pro
At 08:43 PM 8/19/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > die
> > > > If argument is anything else, raise a run-time
> > > > exception.
> > >
> > > So this probably shouldn't be the case.
> >
> > This soun
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >
> > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > >
> > > die
> > >
> > > If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new
> > > exception and die in the fashion that Perl 5 does.
> > >
> > > If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error
> > > object, set
At 09:22 PM 8/19/00 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> > die
> >
> > If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new exception and
> > die in the fashion that Perl 5 does.
> >
> > If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error object, setting
> >
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> die
>
> If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new exception and
> die in the fashion that Perl 5 does.
>
> If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error object, setting
> the message ivar to the given string, and raise that in
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
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > That's not what's proposed. The core and other users would
> > use classes derived from Error to raise errors. Other users
> > could even just Error itself. Exception is reserved for
> > exceptions that don't and shouldn't derive from Error.
>
At 09:40 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > >
> > > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3;
> >
> > Note that 'error' is a vague term for which you have a specific
> > meaning in mind here; be sure to give that definition where
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
=head1 TITLE
Structured Exception/Error Handling Mechanism
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Version: 2 (Draft 3)
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 88
=head1 DRAFT STATUS
This redaction has been modified to reflect Pete
10 matches
Mail list logo
