Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:28 AM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, though if we went with the nested catch, it would affect the lexical scope in which it is declared, block or function. Perhaps not file, though.
>>
>> why not file?
>
> I don’t know. Off the cuff it did not seem like a great idea. But now I can think of how it might be useful for one-off scripts. I might use a CATCH block instead of END to do final cleanup of open file handles or something in the even of an error. Or just nicely formatting any error.
>
> So ignore my “Perhaps not file, though’ comment. :-)
It would be good for catching all errors in a library.
With that use case in mind, having a package catch scope might be good
too, which would get checked whenever an exception happens in a named
sub that lives in that package, after the file lexical scope. We'd
need a way to specify that we're writing into the package scope and
not the file scope, how about COLON-COLON, or just fully qualified,
that way you could write them into other packages
::CATCH UNIVERSAL {
say "intercepted an exception [$_] at package
".__PACKAGE__." scope";
THROW; # without argument, rethrows current
exception, like C++
}
main::CATCH UNIVERSAL {
say "intercepted an exception [$_] at main::
package scope";
THROW; # without argument, rethrows current
exception, like C++
}
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next