On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 10:34:00AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > I support the idea of renaming the block eval as die, and leaving eval ^^^ That would be interesting :) > for string eval. > > But I'm against the idea of implicit rethrowing in any case. > > Sure, other languages do it, but perl doesn't, and personally I think > it's a better paradigm. > > If you really want to rethrow unhandled exceptions, you can always > > catch { die } I have an ally :) Graham.
- 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