perl.perl6.language.errors archive

311 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:22:00 +0200
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #211
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:15:28 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #210
Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:13:53 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #209
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:51:08 +0200
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #208
Re: RFC 119v2: Object neutral error handling via exceptions
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:47:35 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #207
RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:46:17 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #206
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:36:03 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #205
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:21:57 -0500
[email protected] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) • #204
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:17:18 -0600
[email protected] (Tom Christiansen) • #203
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:39:27 -0500
[email protected] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) • #202
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 05:53:59 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #201
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring SystemCall Errors
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 05:53:39 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #200
Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:07:44 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #199
RFC 119 (v2) object neutral error handling via exceptions
23 Aug 2000 04:27:25 -0000
[email protected] (Perl6 RFC Librarian) • #198
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:51:13 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #197
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:07:23 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #196
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:49:34 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #195
Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:13:44 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #194
Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:25:54 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #193
RFC 88: Description enhanced.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:13:18 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #192
RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:26:50 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #191
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:01:09 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #190
Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:26:47 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #189
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:07:56 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #188
RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:07:17 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #187
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:57:46 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #186
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:51:37 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #185
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:47:54 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #184
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:38:21 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #183
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:36:58 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #182
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:22:50 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #181
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
22 Aug 2000 18:14:29 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #180
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:58:10 +0200 (CEST)
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #179
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:06:54 -0600
[email protected] (Tom Christiansen) • #178
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:46:13 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #177
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:20:01 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #176
RE: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:09:42 +0200 (CEST)
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #175
RE: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:04:49 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #174
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:04:00 +0000
[email protected] ("David L. Nicol") • #173
Re: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:00:50 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #172
RE: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:06:18 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #171
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:52:50 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #170
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:43:56 +0200 (CEST)
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #169
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:43:29 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #168
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:40:13 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #167
RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:32:38 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #166
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:29:33 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #165
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:21:11 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #164
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:16:14 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #163
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:13:17 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #162
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:00:58 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #161
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:30:55 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #160
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:28:05 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #159
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:13:23 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #158
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:58:45 +0200
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #157
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:52:34 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #156
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:51:32 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #155
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:48:10 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #154
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:48:45 +0200
[email protected] (Markus Peter) • #153
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
22 Aug 2000 12:24:17 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #152
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
22 Aug 2000 12:21:00 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #151
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:54:29 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #150
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:43:06 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #149
RE: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:17:48 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #148
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
22 Aug 2000 08:45:09 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #147
Re: On the case for exception-based error handling.
22 Aug 2000 01:56:57 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #146
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:56:12 -0500 (CDT)
[email protected] (Dave Rolsky) • #145
Re: RFC 88 v2 draft 5 is available via http.
22 Aug 2000 01:47:11 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #144
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
22 Aug 2000 01:45:36 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #143
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
22 Aug 2000 01:43:15 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #142
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
22 Aug 2000 01:41:44 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #141
On the case for exception-based error handling.
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:12:30 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #140
RE: Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:52:49 -0500
[email protected] ("Brust, Corwin") • #139
Re: Draft 2 of RFC 88 version 2.
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:37:36 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #138
Re: Draft 2 of RFC 88 version 2.
21 Aug 2000 11:03:04 -0400
[email protected] (Chaim Frenkel) • #137
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:59:10 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #136
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:43:17 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #135
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:48:21 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #134
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 19:38:32 -0500 (CDT)
[email protected] (Dave Rolsky) • #133
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:29:33 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #132
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 19:21:52 -0500 (CDT)
[email protected] (Dave Rolsky) • #131
RFC 88 v2 draft 5 is available via http.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 17:20:53 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #130
Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 15:23:18 -0700
[email protected] (Glenn Linderman) • #129
RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 12:44:37 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #128
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:47:58 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #127
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:23:20 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #126
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 10:14:32 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #125
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:16:17 +0100
[email protected] (Graham Barr) • #124
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:43:37 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #123
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:24:47 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #122
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:43:49 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #121
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:22:20 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #120
Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:22:19 -0500 (CDT)
[email protected] (Dave Rolsky) • #119
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:52:10 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #118
Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:52:05 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #117
Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:11:41 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #116
Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:58:47 -0700
[email protected] (Peter Scott) • #115
Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 06:06:56 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #114
Re: Draft 1 of RFC 88 version 2.
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:41:14 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #113
Re: Draft 2 of RFC 88 version 2.
Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:32:00 -0600
[email protected] (Tony Olekshy) • #112
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.