At 03:30 PM 8/13/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote: >Whose RFC deals with this? 63, 70, 80, 88 and 96. There would appear to be a groundswell of interest :-) The mailing list for discussing this is [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Further discussion in the thread discussed the idea of returning >to the point of throwing, as the routine noting the error might >be supposed to ignore this error, the author of this comment >(Bennett Todd?) implied that that is how throwing and catching >is supposed to work. I disagree. It should never be possible to ignore an exception, except by making it painfully obvious: try { # fragile code which doesn't call any subroutines that might die # and doesn't include any other try blocks } catch { # No code at all } If there are apparently good reasons for ignoring certain exceptions there should be a better solution. It probably should have been optional for the exception to have been thrown in the first place. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searchi... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Se... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Bennett Todd
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Bennett Todd
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning An... Dan Sugalski
- errors and their keywords and where catch can... David L. Nicol
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch... Peter Scott
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch... Dan Sugalski
- English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Bart Lateur
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Dan Sugalski
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Nathan Torkington
- Re: English language basis for "throw&qu... Peter Scott