Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searching

[Dan Sugalski]

At 12:11 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
>2000-08-10-11:52:31 Dan Sugalski:
> > Why not, then, introduce non-fatal errors and a new keyword to
> > throw them?
>
>Arranging for all the builtins to throw a non-fatal exception would
>impose a cost on the rest of the folks, who prefer to have most
>errors ignored (the way perl currently works), but who want to just
>check for the error return from select calls: they would have to do
>things differently.

No, it wouldn't, really. We could make "use fatal;" scoped, so that the 
quit op (or whatever it is) only jumps through all its hoops if the 
pragma's in effect. If its not, then quit(foo, bar, baz) does a bare return 
and that's it.

You'd have the overhead of checking a flag when actually quitting with an 
error, but that adds a very small amount of overhead to an exceptional case.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk