Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 10:13 AM 8/23/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> >Making throw a method of Exception just means we don't have to say
> >
> > throw Exception->new("Can't foo.", tag => "ABC.1234", ...);
> >
> >and it means throw isn't a new keyword, and that throw $@ can,
> >invoked now
At 10:13 AM 8/23/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Making throw a method of Exception just means we don't have to say
>
> throw Exception->new("Can't foo.", tag => "ABC.1234", ...);
>
>and it means throw isn't a new keyword, and that throw $@ can,
>invoked now as an instance method rather than a
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > Throw can't take no arguments because it's a constructor
>
> If $@ always contains an exceptions we don't need to construct one to
> throw.
Um, but, $@ doesn't contain an exception until you throw an exception.
You still have to construct a
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
> Ok, uncle.
Thanks.
Hey, when your right...
> I think C was already going to opera
Gads, people, I can barely go to the bathroom without getting behind on
this discussion, let alone head out for a few hours to pick up a new laptop
:-) I'll try to catch up.
At 07:25 PM 8/22/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Throw can't take no arguments because its a constructor, not a function.
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> > From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > That's well and good, but the source code syntax says it's a block,
> > not a sub. Am I supposed to spend the rest of my life asking myself,
> > "Wait, is this one of Corwin's special blocks?" ;-)
> >
> > I thin
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
That's well and good, but the source code syntax says it's a block,
not a sub. Am I suppos
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > Consider this case:
> >
> > catch $@->{severity} eq "Fatal" => { ... }
> >
> > Are you proposing to make @_ the exception stack in the catch
> > expressions too, as is:
>
> nope, just B C.
>
> catch grep $@->isa($_), qw( list_o_clas
# # -Original Message-
# # From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# # Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:01 PM
# # To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# # Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
# # Peter Scott wrote:
# # >
# # > Brust, Corwin wrote:
# # > >
# #
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Brust, Corwin wrote:
> >
> > I've come to like @_ as our input list and think that
> > exception handling blocks would naturaly use this.
> >
> > Also it seems convienent, which seems perlish.
>
> I find myself indifferent on the subject of where the exception
> stack is sto
At 11:52 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Brust, Corwin wrote:
>I've come
>to like @_ as our input list and think that exception handling blocks would
>naturaly use this.
>
>Also it seems convienent, which seems perlish.
>
>Hmmm...
>
> for (@plays) {
> $qb->pass;
> warn &&
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, now you can say:
catch grep { $_->isa("Foo") } @@ { ... }
Ok, I think I could learn that.
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> In the context of a catch block, if could @_ contain the
> exception stack, starting with
12 matches
Mail list logo
