Front page | perl.perl6.language.errors |
Postings from August 2000
At 01:07 PM 8/29/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >Now, every error is guaranteed to be an object. You can call some method > >or check some attribute of it to find out if it was an exception. If > >you're checking a system() or `` failure, you use it in numerical > >context. If you're checking a builtin failure, you use it in string > >context (unless you have some fetish about errno). > >It's not a fetish. It's for portability and reliability. There is >no guarantee of the precise text that strerror() would produce >when passed EAGAIN or ENOENT, yet it is these errnos by symbolic >name that the syscalls are defined to return. I don't argue with this for a moment (I just haven't seen much code that bothered). I am wondering whether Larry was saying in http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg03111.html that we could do better than checking integers: >I think I agree with the folks that say errors should be caught by >type, not by number. Just as a for instance, you ought to able to >write a simple handler that catches any ERRNO-style error. or whether I misunderstand. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design TechnologiesThread Previous