On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 11:37:54AM -0800, chromatic wrote: > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:36 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > I'd like pushing exception handlers to remain simple -- the current > > system is almost OK. What I'd like it to change to is: > > > > push_eh label > > > > with popping the top exception handler being: > > > > pop_eh > > > > I'm up for better names, too. > > The "push_" is okay but "eh" is meh. push_handler seems better, though > "handler" is terribly generic. If the documentation and comments use it > consistently only for exceptions, though, it could work.
Throw....catch, so push_catcher ? I guess the HLL compiler needs to ensure that for every push the control flow will always pass through a matching pop. Otherwise that'll be another hard to debug situation. Couldn't (doesn't) parrot have a stronger concept of a 'scope' (as in perl5's scope.c) so that scope-exit cleanup can be automated and reliable? Tim [ignore me if I'm talking nonsense]
