Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

PS> At 02:28 PM 8/23/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> 
>> > No, that should be the difference between die and throw. Die is
>> > immediately fatal. (i.e. current semantics) throw is new and does
>> > the magic.
>> >
>> > We get no breakage that way.
>> 
>> Hear, hear.  That's (some of) what RFC 119 proposes.  Keep fatal error 
>> handling
>> and non-fatal error/exception handling separable, using different mechanisms.

PS> I disagree on this point.  I see nothing wrong with there being two RFCs 
PS> conflicting on this and other topics; I know that I do not want RFC 88 to 
PS> change its mind.  We'll find out what Larry wants in due course.  Maybe 
PS> neither of the above.

No problem. Stick to your guns. 

The whole point of this discussion is to fine hone the suggestions. If
the proponent can be convinced, fine. If not, let Larry decide. But
at least you will mention our arguments and then point out why your
position is better.

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183