Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for builtins

[Jeremy Howard]

Peter Scott wrote:
> So I'm thinking:
>
> eval { ...
> } catch Exception::Foo {
>    ...
> } catch Exception::Bar, Exception::Baz {
>    ...
> } catch {
>    ... # everything else, but if this block is absent, uncaught exceptions
>        # head up the call stack
> } continue {
>    ... # Executed after everything
> }
>
> If we're really talking about new keywords, we wouldn't need a ; at the
end
> of the last block; it's only needed at the moment because eval is a
> function, not a keyword.  I would vote for the keywords only because
people
> are going to forget the ; otherwise.
>
Hooray! The trailling ';' required by error.pm is evil and must be destroyed
before drives us all into madness!