At 10:14 AM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >Graham Barr wrote: > > > > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch. > > If someone wants to catch based on an expression they should use > > > > catch { > > if (<expr>) { > > } > > else { > > # rethrow the error > > } > > } > >Then you will be glad to know that RFC 88, in the not quite ready >version two release, allows you do to just that. "Allows" isn't the same as "should be the only way" though. Graham, did you base your opinion on usability, parseability, both, neither? -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do? Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" ... Graham Barr
- Structured exception handling should be... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception handling s... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception handli... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception handli... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception handli... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception handli... Peter Scott
- Re: Structured exception handli... Tony Olekshy
- Re: Structured exception handli... Peter Scott