On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM, John Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well that's a different matter. I had tried that a while back and > found that the result was the same, which was what caused me to go > back to the default overflow behavior. Now that you refer me to that > spot in the code, I see that it calls croak() even when overflow is > set to 'warn'. Maybe that's supposed to be a carp().
Whoops, yep, it should be. Fixed in SVN now, thanks. > In any case, an option to non-fatally refuse to set the value might be > nice. Seems like handle_error() would do the trick. But like I > said, there must be some reason why handle_error() is not being used > there that I don't understand. The general rule is that handle_error() is reserved for handling database operations. Things that happen purely on the Perl side (e.g., setting column values, making methods, etc.) are considered on a case by case basis. I usually come down on the "fatal" side unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. -John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
