Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:33:28 -0400
>
> I like the idea of this. The finer details, like returning what to
> do, could be more elegant. But the extensibility idea is golden.
>
>> To change how certain e
At 2:33 PM -0400 10/15/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>The constructor returns one of three values: an exception object, the
>DO_OVER constant, or the EXPRESSION constant.
>
>If an exception object is returned, that means that the interpretor should
>immediately exit the block, throwing the except
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I like the idea of this. The finer details, like returning
> what to do, could be more elegant. But the extensibility
> idea is golden.
Thanks Luke. Your email made me think of another way of explaining the
concept. Basically, what I'm suggesting is that
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:33:28 -0400
I like the idea of this. The finer details, like returning what to
do, could be more elegant. But the extensibility idea is golden.
> To change how certain exceptions behave, a block simply changes the meth
A brainstorm for your enjoyment, perusal, and general discussion...
SUMMARY
A proposal for an extension to the usual exception handling concept. The
concept detailed here provides a mechanism for handling exceptions in one
of three ways: changing the values being evaluated, setting the result
