Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 7:34 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With that use case in mind, having a package catch scope might be good
>
> Don’t we have a package scope since 5.14 or so if you use a block?
>
> package Foo {
> CATCH {
> # BOOM.
> }
> }
that looks like it should get optimized out, with a warning: AFAIK
Perl has no syntax construct at this time that would change the scope
of something depending on if something else is there or not.
package Foo {
CATCH {
... recovering from Foo:: error ...
}
}
package Foo {
sub riskything{
...
};
CATCH {
... recovering from error in Foo::riskything()
}
}
Another question -- where does a package-scoped Catch return its value
to? -- I imagine the answer would be, at the call stack boundary
between the package that caught the error and a different package that
called it.
That would support conventions such as returning -1 for errors
implemented like so:
FancyNewNetworkLibrary::CATCH { warn "unhandled exception ".shift @@; -1 }
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next