Re: Exceptions and Objects

On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:43:41AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 08:50:41PM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > >         try { }
> > >         catch {                         # ALL exceptions
> > >             switch ($@) {
> > >                 case ^_->name eq 'IO'   { ... }
> > >                 case ^_->canFoo         { ... }
> > >                 throw $@;               # No cases matched, rethrow
> > >             }
> > >         }
> > >         finally { }
> > 
> > This is why RFC 88 is working on syntax and semantics for:
> > 
> >     try { ... } except sub { $_[0]->CanFoo } => catch { ... }
> > 
> > which *does* unwind if $_[0] can't Foo (or, if $_[0]->CanFoo or the
> > catch clause throws).
> 
> Er, why?  What's wrong with just using the switch statement?  It seems
> like except and catch are becoming special-purpose switches to me.  Is
> it really necessary?

I don't think so. And I hope the final revision of the RFC will show
the try/catch/finally above as one possible solution. Or even eval/else/otherwise
if no new keywords are wanted.

Remember these RFCs are suggestions to Larry, he will make his own decision.

So I would suggest that the RFC should simply list more than one implementation
and show the positives/negatives of each.

Then maybe we can end this thread and move onto other things.

Graham.