Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2008
David Nicol wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: > >> Such code would fail if we'd introduce automatic localization of $@. >> >> Is that worth it? >> > > no. > > What code would fail if the order of localization restoration and > assignment to $@ were switched? > Any code that is exhibiting an error that is being silenced? :-) I believe I have such code. I choose to local $@ in some DESTROY methods, because at DESTROY time (and especially if at end-of-program), there is no reasonable way of trapping certain errors. Now, I suspect I use eval to trap all errors in this case, but if my code has any bugs that were silent from this particular consistent-but-broken behaviour being discussed, then they would become exposed, and my code is known to behave acceptably at present (at least in terms of how the user sees it), but if it suddenly started dying during exit where it previously did not, they might be surprised and upset? Perl's exception model sucks - it always has. Tweaking it for cases like this isn't the answer. It needs a replacement. I haven't followed Perl 6 in a few years due to a loss of interest, but I think that is where it needs to be fixed. Fixing Perl 5 is almost a dead goal. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>Thread Previous | Thread Next