--On 22.08.2000 10:48 Uhr -0700 Glenn Linderman wrote:
This probably won't work. What would you return exactly? Also, there's
plenty of chance that the return value could interfer with the regular
return values of that function... This will never be possible without
work done by the module
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
At 02:00 PM 8/22/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
I actually see nothing wrong in division returning undef for a
dividend of 0. It's just as easy to check as doing an eval.
Please don't do this. I would have to check every divide in all
my code, since no fatal is the
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I'm suddenly intuiting that maybe you want to continue execution after the sub
call that caused the throw. But if you continue, you won't have the return
values from the sub call. Where should the continuation take place for
something like:
l1:
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Markus Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Another way to achieve the same result would be to NOT get rid of the try
part of try/catch and then try automatically implies use fatal for that
block...
--
Markus Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[/snip]
So that was:
At 04:06 PM 8/22/00 -0500, Brust, Corwin wrote:
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Markus Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Another way to achieve the same result would be to NOT get rid of the try
part of try/catch and then try automatically implies use fatal for that
block...
So that was:
"PS" == Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS From the reactions on this thread so far I am wondering whether the
PS message I sent out about it when it had a different name got
PS through. Relevant excerpt:
PS Well, you could certainly have a pragma that makes throw set $! to the
PS
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Actually, why not simply unwind the call stack to the routine that
has the pragma active.
sub foo {use exception; baz()}
sub baz { throw "a fit" }
sub bar {
no exception;
foo();
}
Yes.
The
