MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: [wish list]: `foo'
Well if you don't use it, then your opinion is not worth much... And if the
usage you would do of it is just to catch any errors, then well... maybe
you better not use it and continue to hides you buggy code in -d verbs :)
Traceback should not be encouraged, neither should verbs misbehaviors.
That's why the error catching is wonderful. You can make all you verbs +d
and have them only traceback when there is a problem that need to get fixed
(since you only catch the cases when you know what error will be raised and
Beside `' is vital if you write bf wrappers since the -d flag is pretty
Anyway...on the `expr1 ! CODE => expr2' topic, what would be nice would be
to get ride of the `', i.e. expr1 ! CODE => expr2
Like we use foo ? bar | baz, not `foo ? bar | baz'
In complexe statements we could use parenthesis like with the ?| construct.
Is that possible?
At 9:06 -0800 8/1/96, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>At 02:44 PM 7/31/96 PDT, Pavel Curtis wrote:
>>> It'd be cool to be able to shorthand `expr ! ANY' all the way to `expr'.
>>Not doing this was an explicit design decision. Almost always, the use
>>is a mistake; you should list the errors you actually expect to see so
>>unexpected ones won't just disappear. Since proper use of ANY is so rare, I
>>didn't want to encourage improper use by making it the default.
>Usually, there are two possible errors for any sane programmer's expression.
>One error is the one you are trying to avoid by the `' expression, and the
>other error would only be by a bug in the code. Perhaps using `expr' would
>be best after the code is debugged.
>I believe tracebacks should not be encouraged. I do all of my code -d
>unless I'm debugging (hence the name 'debug flag'), so I haven't used `'
>except in an eval()... But I agree with Quinn anyways... :)
Subject Index |