Re: raise()

• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:34:41 PDT
• From:
  Nick Ingolia <ningolia@neon.ci.lexington.ma.us>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <v03007804ae282a622101@[128.18.20.118]>

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Richard Godard wrote:

> One problem that I experience those days is catching errors, analyse the
> value/message and raise() it again if I can't do anything with the value...
> it works nicely, except the traceback that result is not as informative :(
>
> I was wondering if we could have a reraise() bf (or reraise; statement)
> that would continue the raising (and error catching) process as if the
> except clause containing the bf call/statement has not caight it?
>
(example snipped)

The C++ exception-catching syntax (which was not the original basis for
the
MOO exception syntax) has a form of the throw statement which is of the
form:
throw;
	and may only be used inside an exception handler.  This performs
essentially what you were talking about and allows "partial exception
handling" and other useful features.  Basically, it re-throws the
exception that was being handled.  This might be a bit of a hack to the
stack-unwinding syntax, but it would probably be doable and certainly
could be useful.


--Nick Ingolia

ningolia@[oxygen|neon|stu].ci.lexington.ma.us
ingolia@molbio.mgh.harvard.edu

• Re: raise()
• From: "Robert J. Brown" <rj@eli.wariat.org>

• raise()
• From: Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>

• Prev: Re: raise()
• Next: Re: raise()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows