Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote:
> The catch block should not do conditional execution. One should use a switch statement or whatever inside the catch block.
Why not? Please make a real case for that opinion. If the common case
is going to be tests for certain types of exceptions or a given/when
block, why wouldn't we want to provide sugar for that? (Which is why
my playful example had "catch CONDITION" and "otherwise BLOCK".)
> Might be nice to pass the error, but no other block works that way (only anonymous subs), so using a lexical $_ would probably be the way to go (again, like Try::Tiny).
Do you mean "localized $_" instead of "lexical $_"? Didn't we just
decide that lexical $_ is a problem? Even so, why should we continue
to perpetuate the use of globals which can be modified by code called
by an error handler?
How about using a non-argument lexical like "for" blocks:
for my $foo ( list() ) { ... }
For try/catch:
try { ... }
catch my $err { ... }
And like "for", omit "my $err" to have the exception in "$_".
If we went for omitting conditional logic from catch clauses, then
that sort of shortcut seems useful.
try {
risky();
}
catch my $err {
...
}
David
--
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/
Twitter/IRC: @xdg
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next