There is no complecting involved since you can easily use catch alone, finally alone, or both. Exactly as you note, they are orthogonal. Of course, there is nothing wrong with your convenience macros, if they help your specific case. They are obviously special-case macros derived from the general Clojure try-catch-finally form.
-marko On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:01:26 PM UTC+2, Emanuel Rylke wrote: > > I've been thinking about exceptions a bit and it occurred to me that the > catch and finally clauses are orthogonal. > I mean code in a catch clause runs conditional on a exception being thrown > and code in a finally clause runs unconditional on whether there was an > exception or not. > > So i think using try only through something like the following macros > would make the intend of ones code more explicit. > > (defmacro simple-catch [maythrow & clauses] > `(try > ~maythrow > ~@(map #(cons 'catch %) clauses))) > > (defmacro simple-finally [maythrow & body] > `(try > ~maythrow > (finally > ~@body))) > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
