On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
> because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
> who meant to say catch Foo {}? And what happens when someone
> says catch "Foo", "Bar" {}?
>
> We can't just say that catch Foo {} and catch "Foo" {} are the
> same thing, or that catch "Foo" {} is outlawed, because catch
> $test {} is supposed to work even if $test *is* a string.
>
> Or can we? I'm not a parser expert.
>
> And while I'm on the topic, how likely is it that
>
> catch <expr> { ... }
I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
If someon wants to catch based on an expression they should
use
catch {
if (<expr>) {
}
else {
# rethrow the error
}
}
Graham.
