Inconsistent catch behaviour
Wed Jul 1 12:05:27 CEST 2009
Kostis Sagonas <kostis@REDACTED> writes:
> Adam Lindberg wrote:
>> How come I can write:
>> 1> catch 1 + a.
>> 2> case catch 1 + a of A -> A end.
>> 3> A = (catch 1 + a).
>> and even
>> 4> catch 1 + a.
>> 5> A = v(-1).
>> but not
>> 4> A = catch 1 + a.
> Ulf Wiger has already answered this question, but I want to ask a
> different one. Why should one bother these days with catch (even
> mention it on this mailing list) when try-catch is available?
If you don't care about the result. E.g.
to assert that the table foo no longer exists.
More information about the erlang-questions