Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2021
* hv@crypt.org <hv@crypt.org> [2021-10-19 21:49:47 +0100]:
> "Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> : try {
> : ## 100 lines here
> : }
> : finally {
> : say "Oh and just do this before you go"
> : }
> [...]
> : {
> : ## 100 lines here
> : }
> : finally {
> : say "Oh and just do this before you go"
> : }
Replying to Hugo's comment only to honor it; but in the case of
the bare block this seems like a NOOP unless "finally" implies a
"wait" or waitpid for thing, but I don't know what things that
could be other than a child process spawned by either C<fork> or
an explict background shell command via C<system> or C<``> or
C<qx//>, etc.
LABEL:
{
# do stuff
# spawn a child proc
}
finally {
# do more stuff but what's
# the state of child process?
}
1. when does `finally` get executed, does it wait for child pid?
2. does LABEL: work as expected if one does, `next LABEL;`?
Cheers
Brett
> :
> :There was no `try` at the top, meaning the reader didn't get lulled
> :into a false sense of security by thinking there's exception-catching
> :going on here when there isn't. It's just a bare block, doing what bare
> :blocks do.
>
> On the other hand, there is also the possibility now that you end up
> with:
>
> {
> # couple of lines here
> }
> # 100 lines of comments here
> finally { ... }
>
> I think it's unwise to try to mitigate every case of "100 lines here",
> it seems like a short road to madness. But if you want to avoid it in
> this case, I think you'd need yet another keyword. I'm not convinced
> that the language is improved by tacking an optional continuation onto
> bare blocks.
>
> Either way, I do think we should be encouraging Perl developers to write
> their code so as to minimize confusion, eg by factoring away "100 lines
> here".
>
> Hugo
--
--
oodler@cpan.org
oodler577@sdf-eu.org
SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - http://sdfeu.org
irc.perl.org #openmp #pdl #native
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next