Chaim Frenkel wrote: > > > [stuff about exceptions being self-ignorable] > > I am adamant against increasing the number of methods of creating > action at a distance. (Look at the planed removal of all the $/, etc > variables. Don't keep adding this type of problem. I agree completely. Not to put words into Peter's mouth, but I think he was just trying to be inclusive in re some other peoples' requests. As far as I know, the proposed omnibus Exceptions RFC does not go there (except, of course, that exceptions are themselves action at a distance, in the sense that they are non-local flow control). Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
- RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: "Try? There is no try." -- Yoda's ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: "Try? There is no try." -- Yod... Tony Olekshy
- Re: "Try? There is no try." -- Yod... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Graham Barr
- Re: "Try? There is no try." -- Yoda's ... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 63 (v3) Exception handling syntax Tony Olekshy