From: Paul Cochrane (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:06:47 -0700
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane # Please include the string: [perl #43417] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43417 > Hi all, As part of going through and converting internal_exception()s to real_exception()s (see RT#40392) I've found several functions which could use real_exception(), but to use this they would have to have the interpreter passed in as an argument, hence changing their API. Is it worth changing these functions' API just for a real_exception()? Comments most definitely welcome! Paul As far as I'm concerned, the only places where we should keep internal_exception are those where throwing an exception would just make it worse, e.g. when deep memory corruption is detected and throwing is so likely to fail that it would only obscure the source of the error. I've been converting calls to use real_exception one at a time, because I needed to see the backtrace to debug something else; that alone, IMHO, is worth API changes. Using real_exception will become even more helpful as code gets more complicated and interactive debugging becomes more powerful. So my vote is a resounding YES! If you would like to pass some or all of these cases on to me, please do; just let me know, so I'm not stepping on your toes. -- Bob Rogers http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
