On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:16:26AM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> try { } finally { } catch { }
I don not see ht epoint of this ?
IMO, it should be simple.
try { }
catch Class { }
catch { }
finally { }
If try throws it is caught by the catch blocks
finally is always run
if any of
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:11:32AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "TO" == Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TO> Consider "finally" vs. "always". Always? Even if force majeur?
> TO> Finally simply means, "as the final act of the unwind processing".
>
> Am I missing something. I
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:19:53AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I would say that outside of the try block all throws are caught if
> at all by the wrapping try. So that throws propogate outward. Never
> back within itself.
Agreed.
> There is one case to be considered, what if the try block wish
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:49:15PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
>
> or AUTOLOAD can be defined in terms of C
> and overloaded that way, rather than being its own
> kind of magic.
>
> catch "AUTOLOAD-$classname-$polymorphicsignature" {...
But why should I have to know that a sub I want
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:39:24PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >PRL> =head2 Exception classes - ignoring
> >
> >PRL> Note that we could also make it possible to selectively or globally
> >ignore
> >PRL> exceptions, so that perl continues executing the line after the C
> >PRL> statement. Just imp
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch,
> because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers
> who meant to say catch Foo {}? And what happens when someone
> says catch "Foo", "Bar" {}?
>
> We can't
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:23:20AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 10:14 AM 8/20/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >Graham Barr wrote:
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that only a class name should follow catch.
> > > If someone wants to catch ba
