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.
Description: Digital signature