On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 02:18:07PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > > Though a good post condition would benefit from some sort of > > unconditional catch of return, I suppose. Perhaps allowing > > continue on the outer sub block... > > Argh, no! A good postcondition is either invisible to the client code, or > makes its presence felt only through the effect of turning a bad final > state (or return value) into an exception. It does *not* offer a last > chance to monkey with the return value! http://bumppo.net/lists/fun-with-perl/2000/08/msg00000.html -- Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson
- RE: type-checking [Was: What ... Tim Jenness
- RE: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] Peter Scott
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is P... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Peter Scott
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is P... Damian Conway
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Matthew Cline
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Piers Cawley
- Re: type-checking [Was: What ... Simon Cozens
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] Michael Fowler
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] Tom Christiansen
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] Steve Fink
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] Michael Fowler
- Re: type-checking [Was: What is Perl?] skud
- RE: What is Perl? Myers, Dirk
- RE: What is Perl? Ala Qumsieh
- Re: What is Perl? Christopher K. Oei
- Re: What is Perl? Randal L. Schwartz
- RE: What is Perl? Brust, Corwin