--On 23.08.2000 17:26 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me of this, Bart, if RFC 88 co-opts die for non-fatal
> errors, people that want to write fatal errors can switch to using "warn
> ...; exit ( 250 );" instead of "die ...;" like they do today. [Tongue
> firmly planted on cheek.]
I can only hope this is pure irony...
There is no such thing as an ultimately fatal error - it should always be
up to the user of a module wether the program should die, but I guess you
see that the same and will answer me with "use eval" then ;-)
and from another mail:
> While nothing in RFC 88 precludes die and throw from sharing the same
> underlying code, or similarly catch/eval, doing so isn't a good idea: it
> forces people that want to use exceptions for non-fatal error handling to
> suddenly have to also handle fatal errors as well.
In which way are they forced? You simply need not catch the fatal
exceptions.
try {
...
}
catch ! $@->fatal => { ... }
That might be a bit longer to type than eval { }; do_stuff_with($@) but I
think consistency in handling is more important here.
and another mail:
> Once a (more appropriate than die) non-fatal throw/catch mechanism exists,
> the use of die for non-fatal exceptions would hopefully wither away over
> time... and if not, appropriate wrappers could be written.
I don't see why I should want that - sure, that's a way to cope with a
distinction between die and throw but without the distinction we simply do
not have the problem. And I definitely do NOT want to have a dozen wrapper
modules or whatever till that usage withered away in CPAN in 95% of the
modules after 1 year.
--
Markus Peter - SPiN GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
