At 11:05 PM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Also a use (within main or if it can work lexically) that would mean
> >> die_if_exception_thrown. Would treat the main routine as if it were
> >> wrapped in a try block that doesn't catch any exceptions.
>
>PS> RFC 63 already states this. Uncaught exceptions at the outermost
>PS> level are dies. (And there is a very close relationship between
>PS> die and throw.)
>
>But I don't want that. Why? Throws are error returns not death.
>
>A module author should _never_ invoke die. How does the module author
>know what the caller wants to be done.
Does it make any difference if I say 'croak' instead of 'die'? Looking at
core modules that call croak or die, I see hundreds of occurrences. Surely
there are times when the module has to throw up its hands and give
up. Take a look at, e.g., constant.pm.
>I just don't want to be forced into scattering lots of little try{}
>just to get back to my error return style of coding.
If you don't use Fatal, system calls should still practice error returns
where they do now. They will still throw exceptions where they do now,
only smarter, if RFC 80 gets a say.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
