On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:47:45AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > But I initially wanted to do without the => ... unfortunately that would
> > > require another keyword to handle the EXPR case and it didn't seem
> > worth it.
> >
> >Not necessarily.
> >
> > catch { EXPR } { ... } # probably not going to work though
> > catch (EXPR) { ... } # this will work
> > catch do { EXPR } { ... } # this will work
>
> Um, granted, but if you're going to need additional syntax around your EXPR
> to disambiguate it then => seems as good as any and it has that neat "this
> thing causes this thing" interpretation.
Okay, I'm just registering my opinion that I don't like it. :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
