Thanks, Bart. So Tony, it looks like RFC 88, because of its tight coupling
of exception and failure handling, needs to address the issue of "do FILE"
that Bart mentions can set $@. This is an issue that results solely from the
coupling of exception and failure handling, not from the syntax and s
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:04:51 -0300, Branden wrote:
>Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
>little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }' to
>have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ?
The reason for its existence is simple: histor
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > I find a "let's require some extra hoops and red tape" not very-Perl like.
> > Perl is there for the programmer; not the other way around.
>
> Please read ``Larry's talk in Atlanta about Perl 6'', the text is in
> http://dev.perl.org/~a
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
> > > little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
> > little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }'
to
> > have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ?
>
>
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> > No, it's a misunderstanding between you and Tony. The "do" your
> > reference is talking about, is of the form
> >
> > do FILE
> >
> > where file is a string containing a filename, while Tony is talking
> > about
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> No, it's a misunderstanding between you and Tony. The "do" your
> reference is talking about, is of the form
>
> do FILE
>
> where file is a string containing a filename, while Tony is talking
> about the
>
> do BLOCK
>
> form. do FILE behaves just like eval() (except it rea
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:35:16 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>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 tests on $@ to determine if an exception was thrown, if $@ can
>be set by a do ? OR
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> 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
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
John Porter wrote:
>
> There is no try, there is only do. :-)
Nonsense.
Traditionally Perl has had both the "do" and the "eval" block
forms, the latter which traps, the former which doesn't.
"try" is just a slightly souped-up "eval" that better handles the
class of problems introduced when exc
11 matches
Mail list logo
