Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 10:13 AM 8/23/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>
> >Making throw a method of Exception just means we don't have to say
> >
> > throw Exception->new("Can't foo.", tag => "ABC.1234", ...);
> >
> >and it means throw isn't a new keyword, and that throw $@ can,
> >invoked now
At 10:13 AM 8/23/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Making throw a method of Exception just means we don't have to say
>
> throw Exception->new("Can't foo.", tag => "ABC.1234", ...);
>
>and it means throw isn't a new keyword, and that throw $@ can,
>invoked now as an instance method rather than a
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > Throw can't take no arguments because it's a constructor
>
> If $@ always contains an exceptions we don't need to construct one to
> throw.
Um, but, $@ doesn't contain an exception until you throw an exception.
You still have to construct a
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
> Ok, uncle.
Thanks.
Hey, when your right...
> I think C was already going to opera
Gads, people, I can barely go to the bathroom without getting behind on
this discussion, let alone head out for a few hours to pick up a new laptop
:-) I'll try to catch up.
At 07:25 PM 8/22/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Throw can't take no arguments because its a constructor, not a function.
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> > From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > That's well and good, but the source code syntax says it's a block,
> > not a sub. Am I supposed to spend the rest of my life asking myself,
> > "Wait, is this one of Corwin's special blocks?" ;-)
> >
> > I thin
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
That's well and good, but the source code syntax says it's a block,
not a sub. Am I suppos
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > Consider this case:
> >
> > catch $@->{severity} eq "Fatal" => { ... }
> >
> > Are you proposing to make @_ the exception stack in the catch
> > expressions too, as is:
>
> nope, just B C.
>
> catch grep $@->isa($_), qw( list_o_clas
# # -Original Message-
# # From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# # Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:01 PM
# # To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# # Subject: Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
# # Peter Scott wrote:
# # >
# # > Brust, Corwin wrote:
# # > >
# #
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Brust, Corwin wrote:
> >
> > I've come to like @_ as our input list and think that
> > exception handling blocks would naturaly use this.
> >
> > Also it seems convienent, which seems perlish.
>
> I find myself indifferent on the subject of where the exception
> stack is sto
At 11:52 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Brust, Corwin wrote:
>I've come
>to like @_ as our input list and think that exception handling blocks would
>naturaly use this.
>
>Also it seems convienent, which seems perlish.
>
>Hmmm...
>
> for (@plays) {
> $qb->pass;
> warn &&
-Original Message-
From: Tony Olekshy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, now you can say:
catch grep { $_->isa("Foo") } @@ { ... }
Ok, I think I could learn that.
"Brust, Corwin" wrote:
>
> In the context of a catch block, if could @_ contain the
> exception stack, starting with
I'm rejigging RFC 88 so that not only does $@ refer to the
current exception, but @@ refers to the exception stack. This
moves all the link handling stuff (such as link and any) out
of the Exception class and into the handling mechanism itself.
So, now you can say:
catch grep { $_->isa
13 matches
Mail list logo
