At 4:31 PM +1000 8/31/02, Ken Williams wrote:
>On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 03:32 PM, _brian_d_foy wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 09:48 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>
>>>>Right, which is why I'd call it like:
>>>>
>>>> if (!do_script_thingie()) {
>>>> print $some_error_message_or_other, $@, "\n";
>>>> next;
>>>> }
>>>
>>>Over and over again for every function call?
>>
>>shouldn't the application programmer get to decide that? the module
>>doesn't know enough about what the programmer is doing to make
>>those sorts of decisions.
>>
>
>This isn't a difference between return-error and throw-exception
>programming. The caller gets to make the decisions in either
>situation.
>
>The difference is primarily in the cases when a programmer *forgets*
>to handle an error. Uncaught exceptions force you to take notice,
>whereas uncaught error values don't do much of anything. They just
>let some other problem happen later.
Oh, alright, you've convinced me. I'll put it in the next rev.
(Though I reserve the right to be cranky about it)
>.. Anyone who's read comp.lang.perl.misc for very long probably
>wishes the same thing. ;-)
What, that everyone on clpm would die with a fatal error? I dunno,
that seems just a little harsh... :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
