>>>>> "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>
>> You are being extreme here. I use perl _because_ it is so
>> forgiving. I can easily do unlink("foo.err") and not check
>> return codes because I don't care if it was there before.
TO> No sir, I am not being extreme. Don't C<use fatal;> and don't use
try/throw/catch/finally, and
TO> nothing I'm talking about changes
TO> anything you are used to doing. I went to a large amount of trouble
TO> to minimize the impact of RFC 88 on existing Perl 5 code; there is
TO> almost none ($@ and @@ are now read-only and contain Exception
TO> objects -- that is all). This is explained clearly three times in
TO> RFC 88, once right in the ABSTRACT. I don't know what else I can say.
You haven't. What happens when Graham Barr decides to use throws in
his Net::* modules. These are some of the most useful modules that
I have been using.
You have now forced me to switch to try/catch.
TO> Public APIs to core modules should respect the current state of
TO> <use fatal;>, by using the following construct for error returns:
TO> return $FATAL_MODE ? ERROR_IO : throw Error::IO;
Why make all module authors do that? Have core perl do that for you.
Make a pragma that would treat throw as a return. No cost to the
module author.
TO> I have probably written Perl code on at least half the days of
TO> my life for the last 10 years. Much of that code has been one-
TO> liners or simple scripts. I *don't* want to change how Perl
TO> does those. Much of that code has been applications containing
TO> hundreds of files. I want to change how easy Perl makes it to
TO> do those well.
But you are.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
