Hi,
Matt Fowles wrote:
> On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sub foo (Code $code) {
>> my $return_to_caller = -> $ret { return $ret };
>>
>> $code($return_to_caller);
>> return 23;
>> }
>>
>> sub bar (Code $return) { $return(42) }
>>
>> say foo &bar; # 42 or 23?
>>
>> I think it should output 42, as the return() in the pointy
>> block $return_to_caller affects &foo, not the pointy block.
>> To leave a pointy block, one would have to use leave(), right?
>
> I don't like this because the function bar is getting oddly
> prematurely halted. If bar had read
>
> sub bar(Code $moo) {
> $moo(13);
> save_the_world();
> }
>
> it would not have gotten to save the world. One might argue that $moo
> could throw an exception, but bar has a way to catch that.
yep. $moo(13) will never return.
But this is not specific to pointy blocks: Consider
bar &return;
> It seems to me that what you are asking for has the potential to cause
> some vary large unexpected jumps down the stack.
Yep.
> so maybe this is just one of those things that one has to be ware of.
I think the reponsibility is at the user using &return or other
evil Codes (like, as in the example, -> $val { return $val }), not the
innocent subroutine programmer (&bar)) -- if you play with
continuations, you know what might happen. But they can be very useful,
too! :)
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Failure is not an option. It comes bundled
generation on a dual AMD | with your Microsoft product.
Athlon! |
