On Sun Jul 19 18:27:29 2009, tene wrote:
> Parrot still doesn't have a hierarchy of exception types.
> exception;death doesn't exist. This is the same as rt#36261. I
> recommend that both of these tickets be merged into a single TT.
At Tene's suggestion, I am consolidating this ticket with one
On Mon Dec 01 11:39:33 2008, pmichaud wrote:
>
> ... how exactly does one use C, C,
> and the other exception types from PIR? I see them mentioned throughout
> pdd23, but I've never actually seen an example of how these constants
> (are they constants?) might appear in actua
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:09:38AM -0800, Klaas-Jan Stol via RT wrote:
> On Sun Nov 30 05:51:34 2008, kjs wrote:
> > On Thu Nov 29 11:35:12 2007, pmichaud wrote:
> > > In the list of "Standard Parrot Exceptions" in pdd23, there's
> > > no item giv
Stephen Weeks wrote:
Commit 31294 implements this behavior. Can I get confirmation that it's
correct?
Just looked over the diff. Perfect. Thanks!
Allison
ot be passed as a separate argument to the
> > handler. The change to remove the exception message string as a separate
> > parameter to the handler is correct, thanks for making that.
> >
> > --
> > (The current text of PDD23 is accurate:)
> > Active excep
DD
> weren't clear. The resume continuation should continue to live within
> the exception object, not be passed as a separate argument to the
> handler. The change to remove the exception message string as a separate
> parameter to the handler is correct, thanks for making that.
>
exception object, not be passed as a separate argument to the
handler. The change to remove the exception message string as a separate
parameter to the handler is correct, thanks for making that.
--
(The current text of PDD23 is accurate:)
Active exception handlers (if any) will be invoked with
Not long ago, Stephen Weeks proclaimed...
> Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
> > Personally I like the idea that "any PMC can be thrown as an
> > exception", which would seem to argue against forcing resume
> > continuations into the thrown PMC (which might not have a slot
> > for the
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:14:24PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> Okay, PDD cleaned up. The code to directly support throwing any
> arbitrary type would require significant circumlocution (read:
> inefficient, difficult to maintain), so it's not desirable.
> [...]
> But, an individual HLL ca
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
PDD23:67 has:
: =item B>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC. Active exception
: handlers (if any) will be invoked with I as the only parameter.
:
:
: =item B [ , I ]>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC after takin
Not long ago, Patrick R. Michaud proclaimed...
> Personally I like the idea that "any PMC can be thrown as an
> exception", which would seem to argue against forcing resume
> continuations into the thrown PMC (which might not have a slot
> for them). So, rather than saying that anything thrown as
On Sat Sep 06 15:51:16 2008, julianalbo wrote:
> Sorry, the code I poste was bad. The valid form is:
>
> $P1 = new ['Exception'], $P0 # create new exception object
>
I've changed the example code to use the more common syntax without
brackets:
$P1 = new 'Exception', $P0
. The code works now, s
Sorry, the code I poste was bad. The valid form is:
$P1 = new ['Exception'], $P0 # create new exception object
--
Salu2
After some brief comment on irc, applied in r30833
--
Salu2
PDD23:67 has:
: =item B>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC. Active exception
: handlers (if any) will be invoked with I as the only parameter.
:
:
: =item B [ , I ]>
:
: Throw an exception consisting of the given I PMC after taking
: a continuation at the next
PDD23:41 says
: =item B>
:
: Push an invocable PMC -- usually a closure or, in rarer cases, a subroutine or
: continuation -- onto the exception handler stack.
: ...
: If a I is provided, Parrot pushes the pmc which will execute
: if invoked, which has the effect of unconditionally handling
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Christoph Otto via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat Feb 16 17:23:47 2008, coke wrote:
>> The example in the PDD now reads:
>>
>> $P0 = new 'String'
>> $P0 = "something bad happened"
>> $P1 = new ['parrot';'exception'], $P0 # create new exception object
>
From: "Christoph Otto via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:34:51 -0700
This code continues to not work. Would it be DTRT to copy/pasta some
code . . .
Only if it's not spaghetti code. ;-}
-- Bob Rogers
On Sat Feb 16 17:23:47 2008, coke wrote:
> The example in the PDD now reads:
>
> $P0 = new 'String'
> $P0 = "something bad happened"
> $P1 = new ['parrot';'exception'], $P0 # create new exception object
> throw $P1 # throw it
>
This code continues to not wo
# New Ticket Created by Patrick R. Michaud
# Please include the string: [perl #48320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48320 >
At the bottom of pdd23 there's an example of creating
and throwing an e
# New Ticket Created by Patrick R. Michaud
# Please include the string: [perl #48150]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48150 >
PDD23 doesn't provide much information about how an exception
handler get
# New Ticket Created by Patrick R. Michaud
# Please include the string: [perl #47966]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47966 >
In the list of "Standard Parrot Exceptions" in pdd23, there's
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Allison, if you give me the OK, I'll recast pdd23 in the alternative way I
had in mind, where:
* exception handlers are closures,
* the closures are called _inside_ the dynamic scope where the throw occurred,
* a closure returning without executing C impli
From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:11:39 -0500
. . .
Allison, if you give me the OK, I'll recast pdd23 in the alternative way I
had in mind, where:
* exception handlers are closures,
* the closures are called _inside_ the dy
Just before I committed pdd23 as it currently is, I asked Audrey whether it
was better to make handlers continuations or closures. She said it was not
important, and to choose whichever is faster. However, I think I erred in
choosing continuations.
In the continuation model (as in pdd23 at
I've got a complete (if not battle-tested) version of the exceptions
pdd is now committed and renamed into docs/pdd. Share & Enjoy!
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26 matches
Mail list logo
