Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
[email protected] (Bennett Todd) Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:26:09 -0400
| Newsgroups | perl.perl6.language.errors |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--ILuaRSyQpoVaJ1HG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2000-08-22-16:40:13 Peter Scott: > >I'm not sure, but I think Chaim's main point was just that, not > >that divide-by-zero should be ignored too. >=20 > Well, it could be made user-selectable, right Bennett? Do you envisage= =20 > being able to say >=20 > use Fatal qw(Arithmetic IO etc) >=20 > using classnames that fall out of RFC 80? I hadn't thought about the current cases where the core throws exceptions. I agree that Fatal would be a fine linguistic hook for addressing them, if people thought they should be addressed. I would suggest that I like Fatal's current meaning, where the arguments, if they are normal words, are the names of functions to wrap; so if we're doing categories I would think they'd be named the same way that other modules (e.g. POSIX.pm) do, with names in lowercase that begin with ":". So I'd expect instead use Fatal qw(:arithmetic :io ...); > Therefore the default (to get the current behavior) would be that > some of the classes had Fatality enabled and others didn't? And if Fatal supported unimport, then the default could be inverted with use Fatal qw(:io ...); no Fatal qw(:arithmetic); -Bennett --ILuaRSyQpoVaJ1HG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5qSUBL6KAps40sTYRAvq/AJ9nnkuzURLScYsAWeDNPBT/fLRdbACeLopb 1HYJVhri8URzxGsMYA/KZL4= =O/fb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ILuaRSyQpoVaJ1HG--