Peter Scott wrote: > At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: > >The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way > >the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow. > > I find it quite intuitive :-) I note the smiley. > What interpretation should be placed on statements in the try block > following a catch block? Whatever you want. I can think of three possibilities. -- John Porter
- Re: errors and their keywords and where catch can retu... Dan Sugalski
- English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Bart Lateur
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Dan Sugalski
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Nathan Torkington
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Stephen P. Potter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Tony Olekshy
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Glenn Linderman
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" skud
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Piers Cawley
- Re: English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol