Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Just to point out that fatal is, indeed, as several people keep
> saying, truly in the eye of the catcher.
>
> That said, none of the currently proposed mechanisms permit
> "resume from fault" semantics, much less "resume from hardware
> fault" semantics. Sounds like good RFC fodder to me!
Hi, it's me again. Not to be a pain, but RFC 88 does say:
retry
There has been some discussion on perl6-language-error about the
concept of re-entering try blocks on catch, and the possibility
of using such a mechanism to replace AUTOLOAD.
The author is of the opinion that in order to do this sort of
thing properly one should use continuations, which are being
discussed elsewhere to this RFC.
The intent of this RFC is to provide a simple yet robust
exception handling mechanism that is suitable for error
handling, not for replacing AUTOLOAD.
s/retry/resume/g
I'll try to make that more clear in 88v3d1.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
