Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Yes, well, at this point I must re-iterate that (in light of reasons
> for the existence of a try keyword that I have explained in other
> messages), what you've written is the same as:
>
> try { ... } finally { &do_something(); }
Yes, they are equivalent.
And note that
{
always { &do_last(); };
always { &do_next_to_last(); };
always { &do_third_from_last(); };
...
}
is equivalent to
try { ... }
finally { & do_third_from_last (); }
finally { & do_next_to_last (); }
finally { & do_last (); }
And is also be equivalent to:
{ ... }
always { &do_last(); }
always { &do_next_to_last(); }
always { &do_third_from_last(); }
> So, I think, try/throw/catch/finally/exception are orthogonal (now
> that we all agree what that word means) to "always", that "always"
> should stand on it's own, that "always" is a good idea (I mean, it
> has been discussed in p5p in the past), and that it should have its
> own RFC.
So can we agree finally and always are basically the same thing? I only
used the word "always" in RFC 119 to avoid confusion until it became
apparent they were the same. So really, you could remove "finally" from
RFC 88--it should be a different RFC, by your standards.
> Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
--
Glenn
=====
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
