John Porter wrote: > ...I think an OO syntax would be better. You know, something like > > try { > cough "outa here"; > > catch { > matawba => { sustain; }, > ebola => { overrule; }, > { punt; } > } > } Heh, that's not OO-like syntax! That's a switch statement! :-( Maybe this is "OO": attempt = new Try { cough "outa here"; }; attempt.catch( matawba => { sustain } ); attempt.catch( ebola => { overrule } ); attempt.catch( { punt } ); attempt.try(); Off I go... -- John Porter Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.
- Re: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searchi... Dan Sugalski
- errors and their keywords and where catch can return t... David L. Nicol
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can retu... Peter Scott
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can retu... Dan Sugalski
- English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jonathan Scott Duff
- 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