Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors

At 08:36 AM 8/23/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:07:44PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this should be perl6-language-errors
> >
> > I scoured the -errors but all I could see was fancy-schmanzy talk
> > about OOish exceptions, that's why I wrote the anti-OO section.
> > Unless we get OO faster than its own shadow, I want OO nowhere near
> > low-level system calls.
>
>The exception handling mechanism proposed by RFC 88, which has been
>involved in much of the discussion on -errors, is a completely
>procedural mechanism.  Also, there is a concensus on -errors that
>system functions automatically generate exceptions for errors only
>if C<use fatal;> is in scope.
>
>Objects are only used as a convenient way to represent the exceptions
>themselves.  One could easily unbless said data strucures to get
>"non-OO" exceptions, and move the methods into a function library.

I believe Dan said that he wanted to make objects a lot faster in P6.  I 
don't think we should be precluded from requesting Things That Make Sense 
(tm) just because the current implementation is sub-optimal in performance 
if nothing inherently prevents a better implementation.

--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies