On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 08:55 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
for @! {}
might provide the needed semantics...
After sending this mail I've just realized I don't know exactly which
are the needed semantics...
what happens if you have several unthrown excep
Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 08:55 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> for @! {}
> might provide the needed semantics...
After sending this mail I've just realized I don't know exactly which
are the needed semantics...
what happens if you have several unthrown exceptions in the block, does
it throw every on
Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 22:26 +1100, Timothy S. Nelson escreveu:
> given(any(@!)) {
> }
using junctions on exception handling doesn't seem like a good idea to
me, because it is too much of a basic feature... but...
for @! {
}
might provide the needed semantics...
OTOH, I think it would be sane t
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
My suggested solution would be to change $! to an exception container
object. But then we have to use it in the implicit given in the CATCH block.
If we used an any() Junction, would that do what we want?
Ok, Moritz told me on IRC that this won
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:05:28PM +1100, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
Does this mean that $! is a container of some sort?
It's an object, which (in the abstract) can contain anything it jolly
well pleases. The main question beyond that is how it re
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:05:28PM +1100, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> Does this mean that $! is a container of some sort?
It's an object, which (in the abstract) can contain anything it jolly
well pleases. The main question beyond that is how it responds if
used like one of the standard cont
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:35:05AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
:
: > @bar».foo if $baz;
:
: That brought to mind the question that I've had for some time: how are
: exceptions going to work on hyper-operators?
:
: Will they kill the hyperoperation in-progress? e.g. what
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
@bar».foo if $baz;
That brought to mind the question that I've had for some time: how are
exceptions going to work on hyper-operators?
Will they kill the hyperoperation in-progress? e.g. what will $i be:
Corrected example follows (there were s
Luke Palmer wrote:
So, maybe what's needed is a C catcher (C... eew),
where C would throw an exception object with an attached
continuation. And of course, if a warning reached the top of the
stack without being caught, it would print itself and invoke its
continuation.
I thought I'd try and see
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is more of a language thang, so I've redirected your message
> there [here].
>
>> The most fundamental feature throwing an exception is that it transfers
>> program execution from the call site. Allowing the caller to resume
>> execution at that site
This is more of a language thang, so I've redirected your message
there [here].
> The most fundamental feature throwing an exception is that it transfers
> program execution from the call site. Allowing the caller to resume
> execution at that site is a very dangerous form of action at a distance.
11 matches
Mail list logo
