Re: Catching errors

/ Rui Lopes <> was heard to say:
|> This is almost just syntactic sugar for a p:choose inside a p:catch.
|> What's different is that it would allow "other errors" to percolate
|> up. We have no mechanism for doing that.
| Allowing "other errors" to percolate up is the key factor. With
| @code, a pipeline library author has the ability to control over
| which errors should be handled by the library itself or by library
| users. Imho, it's not a corner case.

Yes. I was agreeing with you :-)

|> I don't know. Someone's going to suggest p:finally if we do this.
|> (Actually, it's already been suggested to me, but...)
| I'm not sure if p:finally would be useful outside corner cases, but I'd give it
| a chance. Maybe an example would clarify this.

I can't think of one, but I'm not sure I've ever used "finally" in a
Java program either. Given that steps are self-contained, I really
don't think we need a finally. Though, I suppose someone will raise
the case of an extension step that opens a database and needs a
finally to close it.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | Everything should be made as simple as            | possible, but no simpler.

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 14:07:50 UTC