There's something I didn't quite understand about RFC 88:
When I
try {
die "foo";
} catch {
die "bar";
}
I die with "bar", right? But what happens if I
try {
die "foo";
} finally {
die "bar";
}
I die with "foo" or "bar" ? Why is this the
Branden wrote:
> And I'll probably ask you to use another naming/extension, like pp5 (par for
> perl 5), so that modules for both versions don't get mixed up (since they'll
> be incompatible).
That doesn't make sense. Either your script or your archive
tool (par, pun, or CPAN or whatever
Branden wrote:
>
> There's something I didn't quite understand about RFC 88:
>
> When I
>
> try {
> die "foo";
> } catch {
> die "bar";
> }
>
> I die with "bar", right? But what happens if I
>
> try {
> die "foo";
> } finally {
> die "bar";
I fear I'm not adding anything apart from noise to this debate.
(partly from not having thought through the issues completely, partly by
not reading the full archives for the list from last year)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> unwind-protect a reality. As a resu
> Related
>
> Jarkko would really like
>
> print "Foo\n";
>
> in a void context to behave as
>
> print "Foo\n" or die $!;
Not just basic I/O but anything 'system': pipe(), system(), opendir(),
mkdir(), chdir(), fork(), socket(), and so on.
> I think that it would be nice in 5.8 to (optio
At 07:51 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 12 February 2001 16:54, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >Could you guys please use "destruction" or "cleanup" as the term for the
> > >end-of-scope processing (see e.g. C++). Finalization is used everywhere
> > >else to mean: called by GC be
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Traditionally Perl has had both the "do" and the "eval" block
> forms, the latter which traps, the former which doesn't.
In the perl 5 pocket reference 3rd edition page 63, it claims that $@ is
set to the result of an eval or do. How does this impact exception
handling tes
I had posted this up on the perl-qa list, but it was suggested its
also applicable to perl-meta. Please send all replies to either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and not perl6-meta).
As I said, I'm an awful administrator. I have enough trouble
remembering what I'm supposed to be d
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:55 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >It's pretty hard (for me) to think of when you'd want an AUTOLOADed DESTROY,
> >since if you create /any/ objects of the class, DESTROY will be called.
> >"It isn't possible to AUT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Branden wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm working on the PDD for par. I would like to propose a standard directory
> structure for the files inside the archive, but I realise this depends
> greatly upon the directory structure of Perl itself.
>
> How does Perl 5 manage its directory
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> 2. Support always and except blocks. These constructs may be used
> without requiring a try before the block. They are dynamic
> operations which only come into play when they are encountered
> in the block, in run-time order.
...
> If we take this approach
At 03:56 PM 2/12/2001 -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > [...] I wasn't talking about try{}/finally{} stuff. I was talking
> > about DESTROY (or its equivalent) for objects, which unfortunately
> > can't be tied to any one particular place in the code.
>
>and, from another thr
> James Mastros wrote:
>
> >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
like any other method.
--
John Porter
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > James Mastros wrote:
> > >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
[Note: that's a hypothetical quote.]
> I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> l
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > >"It isn't possible to AUTOLOAD DESTROY." --perlmem(6)
>
> I'm not sure what that means. Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> like any other method.
Yes, its a classic autoloader mistake
At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> > like any other method.
>The idea is [for Larry] to declare "no, it isn't". Otherwise, you have to
>do
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> If we take this approach then when you just want to casually say
>
> my $f = open $file; always { close $f };
>
> you can. I like that. In addition, when you want to carefully ...
How about "later" instead of "always"
Because: "later" is a time in the future, but
At 03:27 PM 2/13/01 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>I fear I'm not adding anything apart from noise to this debate.
>(partly from not having thought through the issues completely, partly by
>not reading the full archives for the list from last year)
>
>On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony
Hello.
I'm working on the PDD for par. I would like to propose a standard directory
structure for the files inside the archive, but I realise this depends
greatly upon the directory structure of Perl itself.
How does Perl 5 manage its directory structure?
Suppose $PERL is the base directory whe
At 10:35 AM 2/13/01 -0800, I wrote:
>I think you'll find this addressed already in RFCs 70, 80, and 151. At
>least, that was my intention.
Urp, poorly worded. Should be, "my intention in the two RFCs out of these
three that I wrote." Don't want to appear to be trying to claim credit for
RFC
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 10:32:26AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> >Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
> > > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
> > > like any other method.
> >The i
At 10:32 AM 2/13/2001 -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
>>Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
>> > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
>> > like any other method.
>>The idea is [for Larry]
At 06:35 PM 2/13/01 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > This may be a naive question, but what is the benefit - aside from
> > consistency, and we don't need to rehash the litany on that - to AUTOLOAD
> > getting called for DESTROY? I've never actually seen any code that makes
> > use of it. I hav
At 05:55 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:33:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >package foo;
> >use attrs qw(cleanup_sub);
> >
> > would be nice, but I don't know that he'll go for it. (Though it's the
> only
> > way I can think of to avoid AUTOLOAD bei
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 07:32:46PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> David L. Nicol writes:
> > Is there a budget? Apprenticeship makes all kinds of sense when
> > there is actually a money flow into the guild; the carrot of eventual
> > credentials is too weak for me and many lesser poetasters.
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
>
> [1] See the massive thread starting at
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00584.html
Is there a budget? Apprenticeship makes all kinds of sense when
there is actually a money flow into the guild; the carrot of eventual
credentials is too weak for me and many lesser poeta
David L. Nicol writes:
> Is there a budget? Apprenticeship makes all kinds of sense when
> there is actually a money flow into the guild; the carrot of eventual
> credentials is too weak for me and many lesser poetasters.
>
> Could O'Reilly and Microsoft divert some funds to actually paying pe
27 matches
Mail list logo
