On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 08:51:57AM -0500, Autarch wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Graham Barr wrote:
>
> > If you are to discuss anything it should be open. Why have subscriber-post-only ?
>
> Because if you don't care enough to subscribe then you shouldn't be able
> to post. That's just my general mailing list philosophy (and it helps
> prevent some random spam I think).
>
> > > I strongly disagree. As try/catch is not built into Perl
> >
> > Yet. Last year there was the intent to have it so that it would look like
> > it was built in. Pushing the API levels down does not give that impression.
>
> Ugh. But that's only IMHO. I really think the try/catch stuff is
> superfluous given eval {}/$@->isa. All that's missing is finally I
> suppose but that's not hard to do either.
>
> eval { MayCauseException(); };
>
> my $e = $@;
>
> finally_do_something();
>
> if ($e->isa('Foo')) { ... }
>
> The rest is syntactic sugar. Some people may want it, some may not.
Yes it is syntactic sugar, but it is what many. many people want.
Many people who use exception handling see this as very central, so it
should be seen as being prodominant.
> > While I welcome discussion, I would just like to restate that there has been a
>*lot*
> > of discussion on this in the past. But there are too many people who are passionate
> > about the exception handling in some other language and want perl to mimic it.
> > The result is that you never get a concensus, at least we never have in the
> > past.
>
> Ok, but I'm not sure see I see a better way for you to organize this
> besides total dictatorial mandate, in which case I might as well give up
> and go home.
Hey, I am not dictating anything. I have so far only been stating what has been said
in the past.
> I honestly don't think its fair for you to say that your
> implementation should be the top-level without some discussion
Did I ever say "my implementation" I don't think so.
> (although
> maybe this discussion already happened and I'm just a latecomer?).
Yes it has, many times.
> A
> mailing list seems well suited to this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is extremely not
> suited for this, seeing as how very few people who aren't the core
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] people will ever see our discussion.
True [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the place for this.
Graham.
