Done. 2009/12/3 Daniel Gackle <[email protected]>: > Just to follow up on this point: > > < Regarding try/catch, I'm still on the fence. Anyone have try/catch use > cases where implicit return is not what would be wanted? > > > It seems pretty clear to me that there should be implicit return inside > CATCH blocks. After all, there is implicit return inside TRY, and by > definition, the code was never able to actually execute that return. > Something ought to take its place. We have three or four usages where we've > had to hack an explicit return back into our PS, just so that an error > object makes it out of CATCH. > > Equally important, it seems to me, is that FINALLY blocks *not* provide > implicit return. Either a TRY or CATCH has already specified a return value; > FINALLY is usually for tying up loose ends, not overriding the return value. > In other words, I think the existing behavior around FINALLY is good. > > If no one objects, can you go ahead and put implicit return into CATCH so I > can take out our hack? > > Daniel > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Vladimir Sedach <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've just pushed a patch that should address all the issues raised so >> far in this thread. Thank you for the QA Scott! >> >> Regarding try/catch, I'm still on the fence. Anyone have try/catch use >> cases where implicit return is not what would be wanted? >> >> Vladimir >> >> 2009/11/5 <[email protected]>: >> > Vladimir and friends, >> > >> > In the following example, do you think that both >> > the try block and the handler blocks should receive >> > an explicit return? >> > >> > I'm not absolutely convinced, but I think that it >> > probably should. >> > >> > PS> (ps (lambda () (try (foo) (:catch (e) e)))) >> > => >> > "function () { >> > try { >> > return foo(); >> > } catch (e) { >> > e; >> > }; >> > };" >> > >> > - Scott >> > >> > On 2009-11-04, at 12:57 PM, Vladimir Sedach wrote: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Many of you have been asking for this for a long time, and based on >> >> feedback (as well as my own experience) the lack of this feature has >> >> been the biggest cause of bugs in PS code, so it's with a bit of joy >> >> that I just pushed out a patch to add implicit returns to PS functions >> >> (including lambdas and flet/labels) to the repository just now. Please >> >> try it out and report any bugs you find! >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Vladimir >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> parenscript-devel mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > parenscript-devel mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> parenscript-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > >
_______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
