> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:33:28 -0400
I like the idea of this. The finer details, like returning what to do, could be more elegant. But the extensibility idea is golden. > To change how certain exceptions behave, a block simply changes the methods > of the existing ExceptionCreator to point to other subroutines. This > approach allows for an ala carte style of exception configuration. Blocks > can (through a module that makes this sort of thing easy), clone the > ExceptionCreator object, then change just the methods that are desired. A > reference to that new object is passed down the line to child blocks. I think a clone should be implicit (and lazy). Exception handlers should be lexically (or dynamically?) scoped. Dynamically could be useful in that if a module generated some known exception, you could tell it what to do---on it's level. I worry that this could break things too easily, though. I definitely like this idea in that it eliminates a lot of redundancy. Instead of 10 CATCH blocks doing the same thing with different names, you just have one handler that does it all. Exceptions are always something that seemed tedious to me (though I have had some fun with them), and this might possibly relieve that. Let's see if we can come up with a more elegant method than the return constant thing. Luke
