On 22 Aug 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > Could you tell me why you would want two finallys? > > Why not put them into one? > TO> my ($p, $q); > TO> try { $p = P->new; $q = Q->new; ... } > TO> finally { $p and $p->Done; } > TO> finally { $q and $q->Done; } Presumably because all finally blocks are executed before exceptions thrown in finally blocks are propagated upwards. That's my guess at least. -dave /*================== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==================*/
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope. Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical sc... Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexica... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared le... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shar... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shar... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope. Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope. Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical sc... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexica... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared le... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shar... Tony Olekshy
- RE: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope. Brust, Corwin