On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:34:43AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 05:11 PM 8/10/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> >I was more thinking of
> >
> > eval {
> > # fragile code
> > }
> > else { # catch ALL exceptions
> > switch ($@) {
> > case __->isa('IO') { ... }
> > case __->isa('Socket') { ... }
> > else { ... }
> > }
> > }
> > continue {
> > # code always executed (ie finally)
> > }
> >
> >And the only new keywords are for the switch statement.
>
> Do you propose this solely to conserve keywords,
partly
> or is there another
> advantage? I find
>
> try {
> #
> } catch Exception::Thingy with {
> #
> } catch Exception::Whatsit with {
> #
> } otherwise {
> #
> };
>
> considerably more appealing, especially since catch blocks can contain tens
> of statements. It's easier to see the exception class (not tucked inside a
> method call), and there aren't additional block levels.
Well what is the difference between try and eval ?
The catch syntax is less flexable, if you wanted to catch two
different types with the same code you are forced to either
* duplicate code
* put it in a sub, which is away from the statement. This may not help readability
* put a switch statement in the otherwise
In fact the syntax could be
eval {
}
continue {
}
switch ($@) {
} if $@;
I just don't see the need to make perl look like other languages just for
the sake of makeing it look like other languages.
Graham.
