Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-27 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
: That numerical part could then form the basis of the extended exception : mechanism. No, the programmer shouldn't memorize the error numbers: : there should be predefined constants, like : : ERROR::filenotfound : : which are numeric, and which could then be used for the catch

Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-26 Thread Larry Wall
Bart Lateur writes: : Apropos those extended mechanisms: couldn't we use the same mechanism as : is currently in use for $!, for $@ too? I mean: $! in numerical context : gives an error number, in string context a text string. Then : : die "I'm outta here: $!"; : : should assign both the

Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-25 Thread Bart Lateur
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:12:11 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: eval { open "some_name_for_a_file_that_does_not_exist"; # $! set to "file or directory does not exist" undef; } # $! set to "" (or undef, whichever makes more sense) on # eval block termination

Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-24 Thread Bart Lateur
On 24 Aug 2000 16:03:56 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@ Merging $! and $^E makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why there are two different error variables. Er... wasn't that three? I'm not absolutely certain, but I thought there was a third one, too. time

Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-24 Thread Peter Scott
At 10:37 PM 8/24/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: On 24 Aug 2000 16:03:56 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@ Merging $! and $^E makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why there are two different error variables. $! eq "No such file or directory"; $^E eq "CD-ROM drive

Re: RFC 151 (v1) Merge C$!, C$^E, and C$@

2000-08-24 Thread Bart Lateur
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:50:56 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: But $@ is an entirley different beast. The proposal is that $! would be overwritten with the die string. Reason: whoever's interested in both $@ and $! at the end of an eval? There was an error; everyone looks at $@, which almost