Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()

• Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:03:47 PST
• From:
  Pavel Curtis <pavel@parc.xerox.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• In-reply-to: slayer@kaiwan.com's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:35:44 PST" <199602140035.QAA19859@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>

> Well, I had a web server being connected to an object and I wanted to nicely
> format the traceback messages for the web so the person can see the
> traceback if they are testing their objects, was easy enough to check that
> in #0, but I was wondering why it wasn't called on the object like some of
> the other system-related verbs.

The question is, what's the general rule for which object to call when an
arbitrary MOO task raises an uncaught error?

In your case, anyway, I wouldn't use this mechanism at all; I'd wrap a `try
... except v (ANY) ... endtry' around the call to the code in question and do
the formatting of the traceback in the `except' part.

	Pavel

• Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• From: Richard Connamacher <phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu>

• Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• From: slayer@kaiwan.com

• Prev: Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• Next: Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows