On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:45:12PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:36:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:31:22PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:20:33PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > > > It's rare because in perl, you *very* rarely need anything as complex > > > > as a full exception. Most of the time you don't need exceptions at all > > > > - return values are quite adequete (because (a) you can return any > > > > arbitrarily complicated object, and (b) you have undef for error > > > > conditions). > > > > > > There's nothing magic about perl that makes it such that you don't need more > > > featureful error handling. Those features are not unique to perl by a wide > > > margin; in fact they are quite widespread. > > > > C/C++. Languages with both of these features do indeed not normally have > > any need for exceptions. > > What about them? C doesn't really have (a), and doesn't have exceptions > either. Tell that to dpkg. > C++ has both, and also has exceptions. C++ does not have an undef value. Where's your undefined integer? Nor does it have accessible multi-valued returns - you have to define an entire class to do it. It makes it harder to avoid using exceptions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature