On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:42:34AM +0000, Roland C. Dowdeswell wrote:
> Well, the theory is (whether you believe it or not) is that the
> macro name is supposed to give the impression that it will ``bail''
> which is commonly understood to mean jump to the cleanup code at
> the bottom of the function. I would thus argue that it does more
> or less leave the flow of control relatively obvious.
Modern choice of name would be TRY and have a macro CATCH that
creates the label.
-is
--
seal your e-mail: http://www.gnupg.org/
