> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As for legacy. I strongly urge that Modules _never_ die.
>> It is extremely rude.
TO> The contract between a module and its client is beyond the scope
TO> of RFC 88. However, I take it from your strong stance that you
TO> wrap every ++$i
On 22 Aug 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> Could you tell me why you would want two finallys?
>
> Why not put them into one?
> TO> my ($p, $q);
> TO> try { $p = P->new; $q = Q->new; ... }
> TO> finally { $p and $p->Done; }
> TO> finally { $q and $q->Done; }
Presumably because all f
> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> 2. Multiple conditional catch clauses now work like a switch,
TO> instead of like a bunch of sequential ifs.
TO> This always bugged me too, but I couldn't nail it down
TO> until the debate about using else/switch instead of
> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PS> However, my memory as to what the current perl behavior is was faulty;
PS> continue blocks do *not* share the lexical scope of their attached loop
PS> blocks. I was misremembering the caveat at the end of this part of perlsyn
PS> (whic
Could you tell me why you would want two finallys?
Why not put them into one?
> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Non-shared:
TO> my ($p, $q);
TO> try { $p = P->new; $q = Q->new; ... }
TO> finally { $p and $p->Done; }
TO> finally { $q and $q->Done; }
TO
> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Perl's behaviour after a C starts call-stack unwinding, as
TO> envisioned by this RFC, is as described by the following rules.
TO> 1. Whenever an exception is raised Perl looks for an enclosing
TO> try/catch/finally clause.
TO>
Executive Summary:
We should go to a pure return-based mechanism for error signalling,
or a pure exception-based one. We can't do the former. Therefore
we should do the latter.
Author's Note:
I'm a pragmatist. I'll keep using return-based error signalling
for some purposes, just li
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, now you can say:
catch grep { $_->isa("Foo") } @@ { ... }
Ok, I think I could learn that.
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> In the context of a catch block, if could @_ contain the
> exception stack, starting with
At 11:03 AM 8/21/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>Those rule are hard to read. I've tried reading them quite a few times
>and I have trouble understanding them. I can't tell if the rules are
>complex or it simply needs to be reworked. If it is complex then I
>don't think this is the right approach.
Those rule are hard to read. I've tried reading them quite a few times
and I have trouble understanding them. I can't tell if the rules are
complex or it simply needs to be reworked. If it is complex then I
don't think this is the right approach. The rules should be simple.
As for legacy. I stron
10 matches
Mail list logo
