Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:51:24PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Could be. I'd be interested in seeing non-OOP proposals that do what I
want exceptions to do, I have a hard time imagining one.
Well, what is it that you want exceptions to do?
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:27:47PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
An error has text associated with it, but also a bunch of other
attributes.
So it's a structured data type... where does OOP come into play?
1. It allows you to *extend* the base type with new
Piers Cawley wrote:
Tony Olekshy writes:
Peter Scott wrote:
An exception is an 'error'. That's already a vague concept.
I'll say it's vague. There are certainly uses for an exception to
trigger non-local success, not an error at all. In fact, there are
whole programming
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 04:09:41AM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
$@-CanFoo is an example of semantics that determines whether or
not the exception is caught; stringification may be an example
of semantics that comes into play when an exception is caught.
Ah,
. Rereading RFC 80, I
realize that they are closer than I thought, each emphasising
different aspects of the problem.
I've read this thread with some interest and I'm puzzled by something.
Why are "objects" and "exceptions" always mentioned in the same
breath? Does one need object
the exception
handling stuff from the exception class. Rereading RFC 80, I
realize that they are closer than I thought, each emphasising
different aspects of the problem.
I've read this thread with some interest and I'm puzzled by something.
Why are "objects" and "exceptions&qu
