Redirected to perl6-language-flow.
At 12:23 PM 8/11/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 07:30:53PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
If we're really talking about new keywords, we wouldn't need a ; at the
end
of the last block; it's only needed at the moment because eval is a
I've moved this from perl6-language to perl6-language-flow.
Tony Olekshy wrote:
With the approach proposed in RFC 88 (Structured Exception
Handling Mechanism), you could write that as:
try {
} catch {
switch ($_[0]-name) {
case IO { ... }
I've moved this from perl6-language to perl6-language-flow.
Graham Barr wrote:
eval {
# fragile code
}
else { # catch ALL exceptions
switch ($@) {
case __-isa('IO') { ... }
case __-isa('Socket') { ... }
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 09:36:32AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Redirected to perl6-language-flow.
At 10:39 AM 8/11/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
The (continue|always|finally|whatever) clause will *always* be
executed, even if one of the catch clauses does a die, so
Peter Scott wrote:
John Porter wrote:
Which makes me think that it would be nice if the continue block
could come before the catch block(s).
I get where you're going with this but it breaks the paradigm too
much. Now you need a 'finally' block again.
Sometimes you want before,
