I think about the word some OO gurus use: "raise". Makes some sense, as in "raise a red flag" or "raise an objection". "Raise" means elevate, or escalate. Hmmm, "escalate" sounds good; except it kinda assumes the prior existence of the thing (the exception) being escalated. So, instead of "throw": "throwup". As in "throw up my hands". This is good! "I give up. If someone else can handle it, take it away." Or "throwin", as in, the towel. Or, instead of longjmp: "highjump". Or "hammerthrow". Or "shotput". Oh -- except these things don't usually get caught. :-) -- John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Bart Lateur
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Dan Sugalski
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Nathan Torkington
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Stephen P. Potter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Tony Olekshy
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Glenn Linderman
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" skud
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Piers Cawley
- Re: English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searching Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searching Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searching Bennett Todd