Graham Barr wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Peter: use a try with an empty catch.
>
> That depends on how you think about things.
>
> Many people seem to be coming from the though of "I want to
> catch these exceptions" where-as the current perl-like way
> to do this is "I want to see what exceptions were thrown and
> deal with them"
>
> In the first scenario an exception would look for a try that
> explicitly states it cathes it. In the second an exception
> will only go as far as the firt try{} on the stack and it is
> upto that code to re-throw it.
>
> IMO, I prefer the second one although I could live with the first.
When you want the first one, use try + catch.
When you want the second one, use eval, then manipulate $@.
Just be sure to arrange to handle exceptions while handling
exceptions.
> This difference should be listed in the RFC to allow Larry to
> make his decision of which he wants.
Or to keep both. I will list it in the RFC.
Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
