On 11-Dec-03, Ingo Hohmann wrote:
> Hi Carl,
> depends on how you define simpler ...
>>> error? set/any 'err try [1 / 0]
> == true
>>> error? set/any 'err try [print ""]
> == false
> I just assume that using set/any fits for your definition ;-)
Thanks Ingor - it does. And it was what I was
Hi Carl,
depends on how you define simpler ...
>> error? set/any 'err try [1 / 0]
== true
>> error? set/any 'err try [print ""]
== false
I just assume that using set/any fits for your definition ;-)
Kind regards,
Ingo
Carl Read wrote:
> To capture an error object you can use something li
Hi Anton,
I almost did, see the DEFAULT2 function I posted some time ago :-). But,
seriously:
1) we are unable to handle crashes
2) we are unable to catch some errors (especially throw-errors)
3) do/next cannot handle cases like:
do/next [
do [
lots-of-code-here
We could probably make our own "line by line",
or expression-by-expression interpreter.
Check out do/next.
Anton.
> Unless I'm way off, REBOL has a stack-based architecture to it - could we
> not have a Smalltalk-like walkback window that shows the call
> sequence, and
> what lines each call is
Unless I'm way off, REBOL has a stack-based architecture to it - could we
not have a Smalltalk-like walkback window that shows the call sequence, and
what lines each call is related to (where they are related)?
Clicking on a line item shows the context/state of all relevant store at
that point. V
