On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:19:37PM +0100 it came to pass that Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > 1) REG_INT(5) ...has exit code
>
> I like the idea of (1), but I'm used to C. It seems quite clean if the
> top level subroutine just "returns" to its caller, which happens to be
> the shell. C (and perl) can both call exit midway through any routine.
> (in a controlled fashion)
So, a language designer could generate something like:
set I5,1
end
> IIRC someone said that in python to exit (in what sounds like this fashion)
> you just raise a system.exit exception. By default it gets caught by the
> caller of your main routine, and your program exits. But you can trap the
> exception, and do whatever you want. That feels powerful, more flexible
> than an exit() library function à la C.
It is (I think), and the language designer can implement his/her "end"
or "exit" statement in this way... What I am trying to say is that
Parrot need not prescribe this...
++Jos.nl
--
La vida no es la que uno vivió, sino la que
recuerda y cómo la recuerda para contarla...
~ Gabriel García Márquez
