MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: `expr ! err => whatever'
>What would the chances be of sometime in the future of getting a patch (or
>getting it integrated into the main tree) so that the
>`expr ! ERR => value' stuff would take any value in place of the error?
>So you could do something like
>x = `#obj:verb() ! E_PERM, E_VERBNF, 0 => 1'; or such
The error-catching expression does just that - catches raised errors. This
is different from looking at the returned value.
If it were modified, then, to catch errors *and* filter returned values,
how would you distinguish between the expression having raised an error, or
having returned an error value?
>It seems to me that it would be very useful to add the functionality if it
>would be at little cost.
In your particular example, it's simple enough to use:
x = `#obj:verb() ! E_PERM, E_VERBNF => 1' || 1;
For logically true returned values that you want to filter, why not just
use an if?
To summarise, no functionality would be added - just a shorthand for
existing functionality. And some functionality would be lost -
distinguishing between raised errors and returned error values.
____________________________________________________________
Gustavo Glusman Founder/administrator of BioMOO
Gustavo@bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il (public PGP key available)
http://bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il/Gustavo
Visit BioMOO, the biologists' virtual meeting place, at
___________ http://bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il/BioMOO ___________
Follow-Ups:
References:
Home |
Subject Index |
Thread Index