Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Yes, well, at this point I must re-iterate that (in light of reasons
> for the existence of a try keyword that I have explained in other
> messages), what you've written is the same as:
>
> try { ... } finally { &do_something(); }
Yes, they are equivalent.
And note
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> > RFC 88 does say:
> >
> > finally { ... }
> >
> > Once the try block is entered, every finally block is
> > guaranteed to be entered before the try statement completes,
> > whether or not any exceptions have been raised since th
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> > Glenn Linderman wrote (in RFC 119 v2):
> > >
> > > It is not clear whether the finally clause is executed if
> > > the try statement is exited via a goto or return, but the
> > > statement is made that once a try statement is entered, it
I'm replying to your first message because it contains more information,
but I'm also reading your second one in parallel while I respond.
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Glenn Linderman wrote (in RFC 119 v2):
> >
> > RFC 119 wants to make available to the catch block exactly the
> > same list of par
I made some mistakes in my previous comments. Here are the relevant
items:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> Glenn Linderman wrote (in RFC 119 v2):
> >
> > RFC 88 uses the finally keyword as a subclause introducer for
> > the try statement. RFC 119 uses the except and always keywords
> > as subclaus
Glenn Linderman wrote (in RFC 119 v2):
>
> RFC 119 wants to make available to the catch block exactly the
> same list of parameters supplied to throw. This is prevented
> by RFC 88's stringification and concatenation of parameters.
Not quite true. You can't get exactly the same list, bu
