Re: English language basis for "throw"

[John Porter]

Glenn Linderman wrote:
> 
> More seriously, I agree there is no need for a "try" keyword... it just
> starts a block, which could just as well be any other block.  

This makes especially good sense if the catch{} is INSIDE the relevant
block, rather than following it.

Because without "try" (or its equivalent), there would be ambiguity
as to what block the second catch below is applying to:

        qc/try/ {
                might_throw_E1_or_E2();
        }
        catch E1 {
                might_throw_E2();
        }
        catch E2 {
                # where did this E2 come from?
        }

But no such ambiguity exists here:

        qc/try/ {
                might_throw_E1_or_E2();
                catch E1 {
                        might_throw_E2();
                }
                catch E2 {
                        # we know exactly where this E2 came from!
                }
        }


-- 
John Porter

        Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht.