Hi Andreas, > Great, this would solve the problem. Maybe we then should > think about a cheap solution, at least for now. E.g. a spe- > cial object named CurrentUnoException or something like > that could be provided by Basic in case an UNO exception > error occurs containing the Exception object.
+1 > This would > match with the err variable concept and we wouldn't have > to implement the complete try/catch syntax that isn't > Basic like anyway. Well ... how is "Basic like" defined? By the Basic originally invented some decades ago, by one of the zillions of Basic dialects out there, or by what we me make of it? I certainly vote for the latter ... We also need, IMO, a "throw". (I think Mathias will agree to me here. AFAIK, his repeated argueing for exception-less UNO API originates from his team's experiences with existing API which could not be used in Basic, since this would have required the script to throw an exception.) If we would decide to have it, *not* having try/catch would look ... senseless. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
