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
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> That would be nice. But does this mean that in the following
> case:
>
> try { fragile(); }
> catch { my $caught = 1; }
> finally { $caught and ... }
>
> storage for $caught is allocated and initialized to undef at the
> beginning of
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Shared:
>
> try { my $p = P->new; my $q = Q->new; ... }
> finally { $p and $p->Done; }
> finally { $q and $q->Done; }
>
> If P->new throws, then the second finally is going to test
> $q, but it's not "in scope" yet (its my hasn't been seen)
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
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> trace
>
> A listref containing a snapshot of the call-stack as at the time
> the exception is first raised. The array contains hashes (one
> per call stack level), each containing one key value pair for
> each snapshot value at that lev
