At 03:30 PM 8/13/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Whose RFC deals with this?
63, 70, 80, 88 and 96. There would appear to be a groundswell of interest :-)
The mailing list for discussing this is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Further discussion in the thread discussed the idea of returning
>to the point of throwing, as the routine noting the error might
>be supposed to ignore this error, the author of this comment
>(Bennett Todd?) implied that that is how throwing and catching
>is supposed to work.
I disagree. It should never be possible to ignore an exception, except by
making it painfully obvious:
try {
# fragile code which doesn't call any subroutines that might die
# and doesn't include any other try blocks
} catch {
# No code at all
}
If there are apparently good reasons for ignoring certain exceptions there
should be a better solution. It probably should have been optional for the
exception to have been thrown in the first place.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
