"DR" == Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DR 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; }
DR
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
If you write this:
try { my $p = P-new;
my $q = Q-new;
}
finally { $p and $p-Done;
$q and $q-Done;
}
what happens if both constructors succeed, but $p-Done dies?
try {
"TO" == Tony Olekshy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Syntactically the have to be next to one another, so write
them as one.
TO If you write this:
TO try { my $p = P-new;
TO my $q = Q-new;
TO }
TO finally { $p-Done;
TO $q-Done;
TO }
TO what
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Chaim Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 12:43 AM
To: Tony Olekshy
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Could you tell me why you would want two finallys?
Why not put them
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Dave Rolsky wrote:
Chiam Frenkel wrote:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
try { my $p = P-new;
my $q = Q-new;
...
}
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
Could you tell me why you would want two finallys?
At 12:28 PM 8/22/00 -0700, I wrote:
The issue is not whether it is possible but whether it is desirable. Chaim
thought that the P5 continue block scope issue was 'fixed' by Gurusamy at
some point and this is almost certainly correct. Observe:
% perl5.003 -Mstrict -we 'my $x = 2; while($x--)
At 11:59 PM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
RFC 88v2d6 now leaves in shared lexical scope and says the following
under ISSUES + Lexical Scope:
If it is not possible to have try, catch, and finally blocks
share lexical scope (due, perhaps, to the vagaries of stack
unwinding),
Peter Scott wrote:
Given that even though we know the shared scope could be implemented,
the implementors may prefer not to do it. I would therefore reword:
We would prefer that the blocks share a common lexical scope in the
way that Ccontinue blocks used to; if this is deemed
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 $q-Done; }
Presumably because all finally blocks
Could you tell me why you would want two finallys?
Why not put them into one?
chaim
"TO" == Tony Olekshy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TO Non-shared:
TO my ($p, $q);
TO try { $p = P-new; $q = Q-new; ... }
TO finally { $p and $p-Done; }
TO finally { $q and $q-Done; }
TO Shared:
"PS" == Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS However, my memory as to what the current perl behavior is was faulty;
PS continue blocks do *not* share the lexical scope of their attached loop
PS blocks. I was misremembering the caveat at the end of this part of perlsyn
PS (which says the
Non-shared:
my ($p, $q);
try { $p = P-new; $q = Q-new; ... }
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
Shared:
try { my $p = P-new; my $q = Q-new; ... }
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
If P-new throws, then the second finally
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote:
Shared:
try { my $p = P-new; my $q = Q-new; ... }
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
If P-new throws, then the second finally is going to test
$q, but it's not "in scope" yet (its my hasn't been seen).
Or is it?
Dave Rolsky wrote:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
try { fragile(); }
catch { my $caught = 1; }
finally { $caught and ... }
If all those pieces were in the same scope I think it would still
work like this (in Perl5-ish code):
{
try { fragile(); # It must be Italian }
Tony Olekshy wrote:
Non-shared:
my ($p, $q);
try { $p = P-new; $q = Q-new; ... }
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
Shared:
try { my $p = P-new; my $q = Q-new; ... }
finally { $p and $p-Done; }
finally { $q and $q-Done; }
In RFC
Peter Scott wrote:
Tony Olekshy wrote:
try { fragile(); }
catch { my $caught = 1; }
finally { $caught and ... }
It should work as though each pair of } ... { in between try { and
the end of the last finally or catch block isn't there. Storage
for
16 matches
Mail list logo
