On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:49:13AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > Hi, it's me again, the guy who won't shut up about exception handling.
> > I'm trying,
>
> I'm catching.
And I'm thowing (up :)
Graham.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Hi, it's me again, the guy who won't shut up about exception handling.
> I'm trying,
I'm catching.
--
"Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God."
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> > try {
> > die "foo";
> > } catch {
> > die "bar";
> > }
> >
> > [...]
>
> Surely the first one catches it cleanly since it has a
> "catch-all" catch clause.
That "catch-all" clause throws. In RFC 88 we said, in the
Definitions section,
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
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
> 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
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
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";
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
Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I do agree that Perl 6 ought to provide a universal
> > "destructor" mechanism on *any* block. For historical reasons, I
> > suppose it should be C, though I would much prefer a
> > more generic name, such as C.
>
> Perl 6 ought to p
10 matches
Mail list logo
