Peter Scott wrote:
> >Only one of them needs to be right. As long as one is right,
> >there is no problem.
>
> Right, I was just pointing out that it's harder for people to divine which
> one we picked without recourse to the documentation.
Yes; unfortunately, this problem exists generally, es
At 04:59 PM 8/16/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > > What interpretation should be placed on statements in the try block
> > > > following a catch block?
> > >
> > >Whatever you want. I can think of three possibilities.
> >
> > That's the problem. Only one of them will be right.
>
>Only one of
Peter Scott wrote:
> Redirected to -errors to save a thousand eyeballs.
(I hope I'm on that list; please Cc me if not...)
> > > I find it quite intuitive :-)
> >
> >I note the smiley.
>
> It works without the smiley too.
Then you have the intuition of an Ascended Master.[1]
> > > What inte
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> qc?
A proposed form of in-line comment!
> > qc/try/ {
> > might_throw_E1_or_E2();
> > }
> > catch E1 {
> > might_throw_E2();
> > }
> > catch E2 {
> > # where did this E2 come from?
>
At 11:49 AM 8/16/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >
> > More seriously, I agree there is no need for a "try" keyword... it just
> > starts a block, which could just as well be any other block.
>
>This makes especially good sense if the catch{} is INSIDE the relevant
>block, r
Redirected to -errors to save a thousand eyeballs.
At 11:42 AM 8/16/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way
> > >the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:11:32AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TO> Consider "finally" vs. "always". Always? Even if force majeur?
> TO> Finally simply means, "as the final act of the unwind processing".
>
> Am I missing something. I
> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Consider "finally" vs. "always". Always? Even if force majeur?
TO> Finally simply means, "as the final act of the unwind processing".
Am I missing something. I thought that the finally clause is executed
under normal and exceptional co
