Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
> Here's a simple test for resumable exceptions that I'm trying
> to get to work. I'm probably coding/understanding something wrong,
> so any suggestions or pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>
> .sub main :main
> push_eh catcher
>
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
What I'm trying to do is to test the ability to resume after
exceptions thrown by C. The C sub above sets up
a handler to catch exceptions, then calls C. The handler
simply resumes any exception that is caught. The C sub
prints 'ok 1', throws an exception, prints 'ok
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:01:13AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't see a problem here. I think you maybe missed the bit that says:
>
> A C block sees the lexical scope in which it was defined, but
> its caller is the dynamic location that threw the exception. That is,
> the stack
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:06:46PM +, Daniel Hulme wrote:
: What happens if a resumable exception is propagated through a block with
: a LEAVE, KEEP, or UNDO block? S04 seems to be a bit vague on this point.
: It strikes me that what we want it to do is not execute them when the
: exception is
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:51:24PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: Anyway, as passionate as I was about resumption, or at least making it
: not impossible to implement resumption, at the next ANSI meeting the
: terminate-only camp made compelling arguments.
Well, interestingly, I used to be in
I was involved in the C++ standardization process, and argued for
resumption as opposed to termination only in exceptions. I was somewhat
of a pioneer, implementing C++ exceptions for my team to use before
commercial compilers had them. After all, why start a new project with
an old paradigm?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:59:02PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: Are Parrot exceptions now, in fact, resumable? If they are, is that
: important? Is anyone actually resuming execution after exception handlers
: are called? I think we _can_ keep resumability, but I'm not sure I want us
: to, an
