Re: RFC 119v2: Object neutral error handling via exceptions

Tony Olekshy wrote:

> Yes, well, at this point I must re-iterate that (in light of reasons
> for the existence of a try keyword that I have explained in other
> messages), what you've written is the same as:
>
>         try { ... } finally { &do_something(); }

Yes, they are equivalent.

And note that

{
    always { &do_last(); };
    always { &do_next_to_last(); };
    always { &do_third_from_last(); };
    ...
}

is equivalent to

  try { ... }
 finally { & do_third_from_last (); }
 finally { & do_next_to_last (); }
 finally { & do_last (); }

And is also be equivalent to:

   { ... }
   always { &do_last(); }
   always { &do_next_to_last(); }
   always { &do_third_from_last(); }

> So, I think, try/throw/catch/finally/exception are orthogonal (now
> that we all agree what that word means) to "always", that "always"
> should stand on it's own, that "always" is a good idea (I mean, it
> has been discussed in p5p in the past), and that it should have its
> own RFC.

So can we agree finally and always are basically the same thing?  I only
used the word "always" in RFC 119 to avoid confusion until it became
apparent they were the same.  So really, you could remove "finally" from
RFC 88--it should be a different RFC, by your standards.

> Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy

--
Glenn
=====
There  are two kinds of people, those
who finish  what they start,  and  so
on...                 -- Robert Byrne



_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html