HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:49:11 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
But thinking about optional continuations, another thing occured
to me. It's always bugged me that warnings were something different
from exceptions, and now I think we can unify them, if we say that
Yes, I'm also all for unifying the concepts. But please
don't let us call it exception. Exception should be a
termination oriented (sub)concept. Some kind of scoped giving
up. E.g. a traffic accident is the exceptual case that
stops the regular traffic in a certain area. But for
medics, firemen and police they are the usual case up to
a limit where it also becomes exceptional to them.
Take the example of firemen. They are some kind of installed
exception handlers. And they can handle flooded basements
but New Orleans and Bavaria have thrown a too big exception.
Well, or take the engineers of the Titanic, they trusted their installed
exception handlers to cope with a breached hull so much that they
didn't install enough rescue boats.
BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
a warning is simply an exception with two properties.
or have a WARN block of its own, I don't know.
Or maybe &*EXCEPTION_HANDLER is a multi-method-continuation.
...
An MMD exception handler that is extended in the dynamic scope is
cool because it's not limitied to just control exceptions, warnings,
and fatal errors.
Some fun definitions:
In lack of a better word I use Event and we get
Event::Exception, Event::Control, Event::Warn and
possibly Event::Hint, Event::Log and Event::Fun :)
The only drawback of choosing 'Event' might be that it
smells too GUIish for some? Or is that a feature? That is
we get Event::GUI::press, Event::GUI::scroll, Event::GUI::expose,
etc.
--
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!
