Tony Olekshy wrote:
> I think "always" should be part of an explicit statement, such
> as "try", not some implied property of block structure introduced
> by a dangling clause (inside or outside).
Funny, during the perl6 RFC period, during the discussion of the exception
handling RFCs 88 and 119, you were trying to convince me that the always
capability should be a separate RFC from the exception handling RFCs.
Naturally I respect your right to change your mind, and argue the other
side of the story for a while... I just felt the need to point out to the
list that you seem to want it both ways.
In this excerpt from an email during that discussion, you started a whole
new thread to suggest explicitly separating except and always from
exception handling RFCs (note the subject line), and suggest renaming
"always" to "finally" because there would be no confusion between the two
different finally clauses (one INSIDE exception handling control
structures, and one INDEPENDENT of exception handling control structures)
because they could easily be distinguished without the parser getting
confused.
> Subject: Why except and always should be a seperate RFC.
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:09:23 -0600
> From: Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> Note that since RFC 88 uses a "try" keyword to establish the
> context in which a "finally" keyword is expected, and since
> the my $foo examples above don't have such context, "always"
> can probably be renamed "finally" without the parser getting
> confused about RFC 88's finally.
--
Glenn
=====
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
-- Will Rogers
----- Stuff below this added by NetZero -----
Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
