Peter Scott wrote: > So I'm thinking: > > eval { ... > } catch Exception::Foo { > ... > } catch Exception::Bar, Exception::Baz { > ... > } catch { > ... # everything else, but if this block is absent, uncaught exceptions > # head up the call stack > } continue { > ... # Executed after everything > } > > If we're really talking about new keywords, we wouldn't need a ; at the end > of the last block; it's only needed at the moment because eval is a > function, not a keyword. I would vote for the keywords only because people > are going to forget the ; otherwise. > Hooray! The trailling ';' required by error.pm is evil and must be destroyed before drives us all into madness!
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and cl... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classe... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and cl... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes fo... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classe... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and cl... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects an... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and cl... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects an... Jeremy Howard
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects an... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objec... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception o... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes fo... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for bui... Tony Olekshy