Wed Oct 22 10:33:05 CEST 2003
Hi folks, I'd like to add my NSHO.
I seriously hope we'll never see any 'try'-statement introduced into Erlang.
With that said, I too would like a deterministic way of separating 'normal
control flow' from 'exceptional control flow'. But Erlang already has that
construct, so why add a new one? Wasn't there a discussion about that just
Instead of 'try' could the current 'catch' semantics be extended to add the
desired functionality, WITHOUT affecting already existing code! So why,
really *why*, add a new keyword.
One of the things that make Erlang soo good is that there (usually) are only
one way of doing something. With a new 'try'-statement and the old
'catch'-statement (that won't go away) there will be two...
I fully support the work of separating normal control flow from its
'exceptional' counterpart, but would like to (as many others) keep Erlang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED
> [mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED]On Behalf Of Richard Carlsson
> Sent: den 21 oktober 2003 20:46
> To: Sean Hinde; Erlang Questions
> Subject: Re: Try/Cond
> Oh, and you also mentioned "try". We're still discussing the
> fine points about the semantics and syntax. I seriously hope
> it will be part of R10 next year.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Hinde" <sean.hinde@REDACTED>
> To: "Erlang Questions" <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:25 PM
> Subject: Try/Cond
> > Hi,
> > I have heard and read much about the possible arrival of try/cond to
> > the language. Can anyone shed any light on how it would be intended to
> > work?
> > Thanks,
> > Sean
More information about the erlang-questions