At 05:07 PM 2/7/01 -0500, John Porter wrote: >Peter Scott wrote: > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase. The 'try' helps me determine > that > > the following block is going to be subject to exception handlers which > will > > immediately follow as siblings of the block. > >O.k. That makes sense if some blocks can be try blocks (by adding the >approprate decoration) and some aren't. >But I don't see the advantage of it if any and every block is >implicitly a try block. Me neither. I don't want that. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Bart Lateur
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Johan Vromans
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Peter Scott
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Peter Scott
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead... David L. Nicol
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... John Porter
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... David L. Nicol
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Nicholas Clark
- Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of &... Branden