Browse thread
[Caml-list] Exceptions considered harmful
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Exceptions considered harmful |
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 06:24, Michael Hicks wrote: > > try > > x <- foo () > > in > > bar () > > unless > > E1 -> handle1 () > > E2 -> handle2 () > > The key part to this approach is that bar() is not covered by the > exception handler. Yeah, this is just an extension of let/in: let x = foo () in bar () unless ... however it is still dynamic = statically insecure = unable to reason about the code locally = bad, however increased localisation is obtained: you have more idea where the exception came from so this does seem better. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners