On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 14:31:18 +0000 Philip R Brenan <philiprbrenan@gmail.com> wrote: > One of the many advantages of the *fail* syntax: > > { A...} *fail* {B ....} *fail* {C ....} *fail* { {D ....} *fail* {E > ....} } <snip>... You are continuing to describe a design quite apart from that which has been created time and time again, both in many other languages, and within Perl as either pureperl or syntax modules: https://metacpan.org/pod/Try https://metacpan.org/pod/Nice::Try https://metacpan.org/pod/Try::Tiny https://metacpan.org/pod/Try::Catch https://metacpan.org/pod/Try::Harder https://metacpan.org/pod/Syntax::Feature::Try https://metacpan.org/pod/Syntax::Keyword::Try et.al. I have designed this core feature based on the massively overwhelming precedent given by all those modules, which everyone seems to be creating and using. Of the above list, Try::Tiny alone has 1,255 reverse dependencies (that is, other modules which depend on it). I think that is sufficient to say this particular design is popular. By all means feel free to pursue your `fail` idea - there is no doubt room for multiple different ways to do things in Perl, after all. I just observe that the people demand a try{}-shaped cake, so I shall let them eat it. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/Thread Previous | Thread Next