[eeps] Request for comments on EEP-25 "Unnesting cases"

Robert Virding <>
Thu Jan 22 19:05:03 CET 2009


This may be a bit late but I do want to comment the suggestion about
removing case and replacing it with try. While it would work I don't think
this the right way to go. Using try for both try and case would make it more
difficult to understand the sense in a program and confuse the issue.

Robert

2009/1/7 Andras Georgy Bekes <>

> > try      C1 of P1 -> B1
> > ; or try C2 of P2 -> B2
> > catch X -> Y
> > after A
> > end
> >
> > If I were the reader of this code, I'd think that exceptions are
> > caught in both C1 and C2. However, if we extract the nested try
> > expression, (i.e. following the logic of the proposal), the above
> > means:
> >
> > try C1 of true -> B1
> > ;            _ -> try C2 of true -> B2 end
> > catch X -> Y
> > after A
> > end
>
> Or, if following the logic in another way, it could mean:
>
> try C1 of true -> B1
> ;            _ -> try C2 of true -> B2
>                   catch X -> Y
>                  after A
>                  end
> end
>
> Well, this is even less intuitive I think.
>
>        Georgy
> _______________________________________________
> eeps mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/eeps
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/eeps/attachments/20090122/6938bdb1/attachment.html>


More information about the eeps mailing list