On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:01:13AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't see a problem here.  I think you maybe missed the bit that says:
>     A C<CATCH> block sees the lexical scope in which it was defined, but
>     its caller is the dynamic location that threw the exception.  That is,
>     the stack is not unwound until some exception handler chooses to
>     unwind it by "handling" the exception in question.

Yes, I did. I was grepping specifically for the bit on resumable
exceptions and the quoted bit is 80 lines up so I missed it completely.
Thanks for pointing me at it.

> To resume a resumable exception the correct thing to do is very
> likely nothing.  The outermost warning handler is what generally
> resumes otherwise uncaught resumables.  If you catch a warning,
> it defaults to resuming when handled unless you rethrow it as fatal.

OK, that makes sense.

The reason that came up was because on Friday I had a good idea for a
language feature that would have made a task I had been doing that day
much easier. When I checked the spec, though, I found out it was already
in. This is happening increasingly often, which should be reassuring to
all concerned.

"Listen to your users, but ignore what they say." - Nathaniel Borenstein
http://surreal.istic.org/          Calm down, it's only ones and zeroes.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to