Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.

2000-08-22 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: Given that even though we know the shared scope could be implemented, the implementors may prefer not to do it. I would therefore reword: We would prefer that the blocks share a common lexical scope in the way that Ccontinue blocks used to; if this is deemed

RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.

2000-08-20 Thread Tony Olekshy
Non-shared: my ($p, $q); try { $p = P-new; $q = Q-new; ... } finally { $p and $p-Done; } finally { $q and $q-Done; } Shared: try { my $p = P-new; my $q = Q-new; ... } finally { $p and $p-Done; } finally { $q and $q-Done; } If P-new throws, then the second finally

Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.

2000-08-20 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: Tony Olekshy wrote: try { fragile(); } catch { my $caught = 1; } finally { $caught and ... } It should work as though each pair of } ... { in between try { and the end of the last finally or catch block isn't there. Storage for