Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2008
G'day Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, p5p, and Bruce, I realise that I should have made reference to the earlier p5p threads on the discussion. Unfortunately I'm wolfing down my vegemite on toast right now, and have to leave in 3 minutes to teach a course, so this mail is short (and doesn't have links to original posts). * 'autodie' is the agreed upon name, although Bruce's suggestion of 'bitchin::builtins' was a close second. * Fatal will more or less remain as it is, although there is some risk of breakage since it will be throwing proper exception objects, which stringify into much nicer looking error messages. * Having Fatal and autodie interact in any way where you'd have to ask what's happening is an error. I'd still really love feedback on my thoughts posted in my design questions e-mail[1], specifically: * What should a plain 'no autodie' mean? * Should we say "damn exotic system for this package" and allow autodie to fatalise system()? * If this is a candidate for core, what do I do about dependencies? Should I try to avoid them entirely? Have to dash, students hungry for knowledge are waiting, Bruce [1] http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/perl5-porters/3636480 -- Bruce Fenwick <pjf@perltraining.com.au> | http://perltraining.com.au/ Director of Training | Ph: +61 3 9354 6001 Bruce Training Australia | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681