Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> To me, a program is much like a maze, a
> multilevel walk in an old castle.
And if you commit a faux pas of some kind, the guards show
up and "throw" you off the north tower.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> More seriously, I agree there is no need for a "try" keyword... it just
> starts a block, which could just as well be any other block.
This makes especially good sense if the catch{} is INSIDE the relevant
block, rather than following it.
Because without "try" (or i
Peter Scott wrote:
> At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way
> >the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow.
>
> I find it quite intuitive :-)
I note the smiley.
> What interpretation should be place
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Please take this discussion to the new -errors sublist. Thanks in
> advance!
Exceptions are not necessarily errors. This belongs in
perl-language-flow surely?
--
Piers
"Stephen P. Potter" wrote:
>
> I think fail() and handle() are good. Something fail()ed and
> it was handle()d by an exception.
Fail is no good, because exceptions can be used to indicate success.
Just because you don't isn't a counter-argument. Exceptions are
*not* the same as errors, that's
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered:
| At 04:03 PM 8/15/00 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
| > > open, you fall through, someimes through several floors, until somewhere
| > > you encounter a safety net: you were caught. You can continue from
| > > the
Please take this discussion to the new -errors sublist. Thanks in
advance!
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile:
John Porter writes:
> Heh, that's not OO-like syntax! That's a switch statement! :-(
>
> Maybe this is "OO":
>
> attempt = new Try { cough "outa here"; };
> attempt.catch( matawba => { sustain } );
> attempt.catch( ebola => { overrule } );
> attempt.catch( { punt } );
>
John Porter wrote:
> So, instead of "throw": "throwup".
That leads me down the path of "puke" and "scrub" instead of "throw" and
"catch". Actually, I rather liked the "oops" Scott suggested, but used in
place of "throw" instead of a rename of "exception". So how about "oops" and
"recover" inst
At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way
>the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow.
I find it quite intuitive :-)
>The exception handlers should be more closely bound -- syntactically --
>to the try bl
At 05:06 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>I think about the word some OO gurus use: "raise".
I think that came from the kernel or hardware people before OO was
around. Something about raising and lowering IPLs.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
John Porter wrote:
> ...I think an OO syntax would be better. You know, something like
>
> try {
> cough "outa here";
>
> catch {
> matawba => { sustain; },
> ebola => { overrule; },
> { punt; }
punt. But, specialteam or runback?
die + raise = ascend.
The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way
the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow.
The exception handlers should be more closely bound -- syntactically --
to the try block. A sw
At 04:03 PM 8/15/00 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Just to make sure some opposition is heard: I've always thought of
> > "throw" as very silly word. To me, a program is much like a maze, a
> > multilevel walk in an old castle. There are unexpected trapdoors, but as
> > long as they stay clos
Or "popup" (as in, fly ball", and then "field".
Of course, if we had "raise", then we could have "sustain" and "overrule".
--
John Porter
I think about the word some OO gurus use: "raise".
Makes some sense, as in "raise a red flag" or "raise an objection".
"Raise" means elevate, or escalate. Hmmm, "escalate" sounds good;
except it kinda assumes the prior existence of the thing (the
exception) being escalated.
So, instead of "throw
> Just to make sure some opposition is heard: I've always thought of
> "throw" as very silly word. To me, a program is much like a maze, a
> multilevel walk in an old castle. There are unexpected trapdoors, but as
> long as they stay closed, you can simply continue. If such a trapdoor
> open, you
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:32:32 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>I find "throw" to be a perfectly good synonym for "raise" an exception. The
>english language equivalent is a piece of steel machinery, when it breaks
>while running, which is said to "throw a rod" or "throw a bolt" depending
>of course
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:32:32PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> I find "throw" to be a perfectly good synonym for "raise" an exception. The
> english language equivalent is a piece of steel machinery, when it breaks
> while running, which is said to "throw a rod" or "throw a bolt" depending
> o
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> perl cribs from english as much as
> any other language, spending some time to get names that fit well makes
> perfect sense, especially since most of the perl programmers that start
> using this won't be coming with huge gobs of experience from languages that
> already do
20 matches
Mail list logo
