On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:36:36 +1100 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
>RFC 271 handles this. Your example would be:
>
>sub readit {
>open F, "< $f" ...
>scalar()
>}
>post readit {
>close F;
>}
The connection between these two things is
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The place where it would be put, would be irrelevant.
>
> sub readit {
> POST {
> close F;
> }
> open F, "< $f" ...
> scalar()
> }
Would the POST be executed if the open fails? Wh
Johan Vromans wrote:
>
> Would the POST be executed if the open fails? Why? Why not?
Of course. It's a post-handler on the sub.
> All that POST and such do, is obfuscate the flow of control.
No more so than contine{} on a loop, or END{} in a file, or DESTROY{}
in a class.
--
John Porter
Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> I think "always" should be part of an explicit statement, such
> as "try", not some implied property of block structure introduced
> by a dangling clause (inside or outside).
Why? For that matter, why must "try" itself be explicit?
It says, "I'm probly gonna put some e
Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> But I think this is getting ridiculous. $slightly_joking++; I'd
> propose a much nicer and cleaner concept:
>
> sub readit {
> open F ... ;
> prog1 {
> scalar();
> close F;
> }
> }
>
> 'prog1' e
Tony Olekshy wrote:
> I think "always" should be part of an explicit statement, such
> as "try", not some implied property of block structure introduced
> by a dangling clause (inside or outside).
Funny, during the perl6 RFC period, during the discussion of the exception
handling RFCs 88 and 119
At 09:59 AM 2/7/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > I think "always" should be part of an explicit statement, such
> > as "try", not some implied property of block structure introduced
> > by a dangling clause (inside or outside).
>
>Why? For that matter, why must "try" itse
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> I want the 'try' there for my sake, not Perl's; ... it
> helps alert me that the following block is subject to non-local control
> flow rules.
Huh? Down that road lies the Java madness.
eval {
foo();
};
sub foo {
b
At 02:17 PM 2/7/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > I want the 'try' there for my sake, not Perl's; ... it
> > helps alert me that the following block is subject to non-local control
> > flow rules.
>
>Huh? Down that road lies the Java madness.
>
> eval {
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase. The 'try' helps me determine that
> the following block is going to be subject to exception handlers which will
> immediately follow as siblings of the block. Somewhat as I would look at
> an if...elsif...else construct, it helps me put the block in c
Peter Scott wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase. The 'try' helps me determine that
> the following block is going to be subject to exception handlers which will
> immediately follow as siblings of the block.
O.k. That makes sense if some blocks can be try blocks (by adding the
John Porter wrote:
> Note that END{} and BEGIN{} require no formal introduction.
> You can put them anywhere you want, and they run at the proper time.
>
> Even continue{} is an implicit goto. And it requires no introduction
> either.
So if a post{} block could appear anywhere inside a block,
At 05:07 PM 2/7/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase. The 'try' helps me determine
> that
> > the following block is going to be subject to exception handlers which
> will
> > immediately follow as siblings of the block.
>
>O.k. That make
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:30:24PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> sub has_post_blocks{
> my $i = 3;
> post { print "i ended up as $i"};
> my $arg1 = shift; $arg1 > 4 or die "arg1 ($arg1) too small";
> my $j = 2;
> post {
Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:30:24PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> > sub has_post_blocks{
> > my $i = 3;
> > post { print "i ended up as $i"};
> > my $arg1 = shift; $arg1 > 4 or die "arg1 ($arg1) too small";
> >
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:15:41PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:30:24PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> >
> > > sub has_post_blocks{
> > > my $i = 3;
> > > post { print "i ended up as $i"};
> > >
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> on the other hand, I'll argue the other side that
>
> {
> my $flag
> open FOO, " ...
> }
> post {
> close FOO if $flag;
> }
>
> is clearer because the tidy up doesn't visually get in the way of the flow
> of what you're doing, and you can see what $flag is meant
17 matches
Mail list logo
