Peter Scott wrote:
> At 11:21 AM 8/24/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >By building up a
> >non-fatal error handling technique on top the existing fatal error
> >handling technique, you are forcing code that assumes it will die to
> >behave differently, when you wrap a try block around it. Now
At 11:21 AM 8/24/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>By building up a
>non-fatal error handling technique on top the existing fatal error
>handling technique, you are forcing code that assumes it will die to
>behave differently, when you wrap a try block around it. Now it will only
>"maybe" die.
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Some discussion has suggested that it might be a good idea if it
> were possible to have a simple way to prevent catch from catching
> so-called "fatal" errors. Some fringe ideas have actually included
> two seperate mechanisms, one for so-called fatal errors (based on
> di
