>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:23:35 -0500 (CDT), Autarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

 > I kind of like Class::Exceptions though because the module is all
 > about declaring exceptions (which is really about magically
 > creating exception classes).

I see the difference between Class::Exception and Exception::Class in
that the former acts upon exceptions in the realm of classes, i.e. in
OO programmed modules, while the latter acts upon *any* exceptions in
an OO style. Right? So Exception::Class is more generic, it is for
both OO and functional modules.

 > The reason I chose BaseException is that I kind of like the Java standard
 > of FooBarException style names rather than Exception::Foo::Bar.

Several existing modules have already their own Exception classes, as
in

cpan> m /Exception$/
Module          Apache::AxKit::Exception (M/MS/MSERGEANT/AxKit-0.95.tar.gz)
Module          Apache::HeavyCGI::Exception (A/AN/ANDK/Apache-HeavyCGI-0.0117.tar.gz)
Module          Net::RRP::Exception (M/MK/MKUL/Net-RRP-0.02.tar.gz)
Module          PApp::Exception (M/ML/MLEHMANN/PApp-0.08.tar.gz)
Module          Template::Exception (A/AB/ABW/Template-Toolkit-1.07.tar.gz)


 > It just
 > seems more descriptive and you get the important info first (error type,
 > followed by subtype(s) followed the generic fact that its an exception).  
 > OTOH, its not very perlish.

In the context of a real working class, it looks perlish to me to say
Foo::Bar::Exception, but not in the context of a generic mechanism for
exceptions.

[...]

 > Ok, in light of the greater good of getting all this stuff in the same
 > place I'll go with

 > Devel::StackTrace
 > Exception::Class
 > Exception::Class::Base

OK, noted. Will add it to the module list later today.

[...]

 > Anyway, all this is to say that it would be nice to have some general
 > cleanup of the Exception related modules so that we could present all the
 > possibilities and also work on making them work together (my declaration
 > code could easily work with Error, for example, and it might be nice to
 > have them cross-reference each other).

Indeed, what's needed is better visibility of the existing solutions.
Please cross reference heavily.

-- 
andreas

Reply via email to