Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for builtins

[Graham Barr]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 10:26:25AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 10:34 AM 8/11/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >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.
> 
> We may have to disagree.  If you don't have a clause to catch an exception, 
> semantically, it hasn't been caught, so why would you need to explicitly 
> rethrow it?  If the implementation needs to catch it anyway, that's the 
> implementation's problem.

Which is why catch is the wrong word. In perl eval{} (or try) does `catch' the
error

Graham.