Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > The "try" is not necessarily for Perl's sake. It's for the
> > programmer's sake. It says, watch out, some sort of non-local
> > flow control may be going on here. It signals intent to deal
> > with action at a distance (unwinding semantics).
>
> How important are the exceptions? What about putting them first?
>
> exceptions {
> # code that does exception handling
> }
> {
> # code that may throw exceptions
> }
>
> Note that's a two-block keyword.
Note that's a really bad idea. Two-block keywords are evil.
That's why the proposed omnibus Exceptions RFC has except:
we could do it with a two block catch, but I can't read that
in any but the simplest cases (blocks can get somewhat large,
after all). So you end up adding a comment like "# Try" to
all these "anonymous" blocks. Why not just bite the bullet
and make it part of the syntax?
Leave the try in, put your cursor on the "{", hit % (or whatever
your editor uses), and you've got the next clause. That's what
try's for.
> > I don't think we should obfuscate classic try/throw/catch/finally
> > from the ground up.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you, but as you can see, I'm not letting
> that hamper my brainstorming effort :-)
Brainstorming is a big part of what we're here for. I certainly
appreciate your contributions.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
