Front page | perl.perl6.language.errors |
Postings from August 2000
At 05:20 PM 8/23/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: I'd appreciate your description of what you meant by orthogonal, it certainly >doesn't fit my definition, or that of my dictionaries, as far as I understand >mathematics. This dissertation on the meaning of the word orthogonal is, of >course, somewhat off-topic, except to the extent that it impacts our >communications. I'm sorry I drove you to your dictionaries; I was probably a bit orthogonal myself when I wrote that :-) It's not worth trying to recover what I thought I meant when you understood it anyway. >On the other hand, you've made it very clear that you prefer to see fatal >error >trapping and non-fatal error handling done with the same mechanism, >whether the >word orthogonal has anything to do with it or not. > >We disagree. > >While nothing in RFC 88 precludes die and throw from sharing the same >underlying >code, or similarly catch/eval, doing so isn't a good idea: it forces >people that >want to use exceptions for non-fatal error handling to suddenly have to also >handle fatal errors as well. I think I've already stated my case as to the meanings of "fatal" and "non-fatal". -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design TechnologiesThread Previous | Thread Next