>>>>> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> However, many people have broached topics such as conditional catch
TO> blocks (such as those based on the exception's isa relationships),
TO> multiple catch clauses with varying conditions, and post-finally
TO> catch blocks.
TO> I agree that we don't have a great handle on the flow-control semantics
TO> for multiple catch blocks. We're working on it. But if we can come
TO> up with some decent simple rules, then I see no reason to prohibit
TO> careful use of more complex constructs.
What in the simple methodology combined with Damian's switch monster,
is missing?
I'll hazard a guess that, if the complex syntax goes in and if there
is no semantic issue, -internals will likely convert the complex
version internally to a switch.
So is it syntactical sugar or something that can't be done otherwise?
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
