Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-16 Thread John Porter
Peter Scott wrote: Only one of them needs to be right. As long as one is right, there is no problem. Right, I was just pointing out that it's harder for people to divine which one we picked without recourse to the documentation. Yes; unfortunately, this problem exists generally,

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-16 Thread Piers Cawley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please take this discussion to the new -errors sublist. Thanks in advance! Exceptions are not necessarily errors. This belongs in perl-language-flow surely? -- Piers

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-16 Thread John Porter
Peter Scott wrote: At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow. I find it quite intuitive :-) I note the smiley. What interpretation should be placed on

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-16 Thread David L. Nicol
Bart Lateur wrote: To me, a program is much like a maze, a multilevel walk in an old castle. And if you commit a faux pas of some kind, the guards show up and "throw" you off the north tower. -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-15 Thread Bart Lateur
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:32:32 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote: I find "throw" to be a perfectly good synonym for "raise" an exception. The english language equivalent is a piece of steel machinery, when it breaks while running, which is said to "throw a rod" or "throw a bolt" depending of course on

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-15 Thread Peter Scott
At 05:06 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: I think about the word some OO gurus use: "raise". I think that came from the kernel or hardware people before OO was around. Something about raising and lowering IPLs. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-15 Thread Peter Scott
At 05:33 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote: The thing I don't like about C++/Java try/catch syntax is the way the blocks are daisychained. That is not intuitive to the flow. I find it quite intuitive :-) The exception handlers should be more closely bound -- syntactically -- to the try

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-15 Thread Stephen P. Potter
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered: | At 04:03 PM 8/15/00 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: | open, you fall through, someimes through several floors, until somewhere | you encounter a safety net: you were caught. You can continue from | there. If

Re: English language basis for throw

2000-08-15 Thread Tony Olekshy
"Stephen P. Potter" wrote: I think fail() and handle() are good. Something fail()ed and it was handle()d by an exception. Fail is no good, because exceptions can be used to indicate success. Just because you don't isn't a counter-argument. Exceptions are *not* the same as errors, that's

English language basis for throw

2000-08-14 Thread David L. Nicol
Dan Sugalski wrote: perl cribs from english as much as any other language, spending some time to get names that fit well makes perfect sense, especially since most of the perl programmers that start using this won't be coming with huge gobs of experience from languages that already do it.