On 10/5/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 16:57:51 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:17:05 +0200, TSa wrote: > > > Whow, how does a higher level exception catcher *in general* know > > > what type it should return and how to construct it? The innocent > > > foo() caller shouldn't bother about a quux() somewhere down the line > > > of command. Much less of its innards. > > > > Well said. > > > No! Not well said at all! > > The exception handler knows *EVERYTHING* because it knows what > exception it caught:
I don't think it was a "how is this possible", but more of a "what business does it have?". And as far as I gathered, they're saying pretty much what you've been saying, but in a different way. It's about the continuation boundary; that is, if you're outside a module, you have no say in how the module does its business. You can continue only at the module boundary, replacing a return value from its public interface. Of course, exactly how this "public interface" is declared is quite undefined. Luke
