On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:29:29 -0500 "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This example is misleading. First, catching an exception should be a rare > occurrence (literally, an exception to the rule). You are testing the > case where catching an exception vastly outweighs the cases where an > exception is not thrown. What I'm saying is, catching an exception is > very slow, but *trying* to catch an exception is not. Right, understood, thank you. Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
