[erlang-questions] Old school exceptions vs. new age one

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Torbjorn Tornkvist <tobbe@REDACTED> wrote:

> Christian S wrote:
> > This paper on exceptions is a very good read for
> those that have been
> > confused by "new style" erlang exceptions.
> > 
> > http://www.erlang.se/workshop/2004/exception.pdf
> 
> Yes, apparently it was written by some great minds
> :-)

Another part of the effort to turn Erlang into ML, eh?
:-)

I have to note that I nearly always use 'catch' rather
than 'try', and even consider 'catch' taking care of
all cases in a great big mess the usually desired
behaviour. But since I so clearly Don't Get It, I'm
wondering: what properties of 'try' do people consider
great _in practice_? What has saved your bacon in
switching from old to new school?

* ability to differentiate between exception kinds?
* ignoring the exception handler on mismatch?
* the 'finally' clause?
* syntax is nicer?
* something else? if so, what

Best,
Thomas



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ