Re: [Cardinal-dev] Does Ruby require restartable exceptions?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 2:23 PM -0400 5/30/02, Pat Eyler wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >  At 6:49 PM +0200 5/30/02, Erik BÂgfors wrote:
> >  >On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:38, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >  >>  Here's a question. Does Ruby require that you be able to catch an
> >  >>  exception then restart or resume from where the exception was thrown?
> >  >
> >  >AFAIK no,
> >  >
> >  >What you do in ruby is restart by hand.
> >
> >  Cool. I was worried you could do something like:
> >
> >  try {
> >      object.method_which_pitches_exception();
> >  } catch {
> >     resume;
> >  }
> >
> >  and have the resume jump back into the object's method at the place
> >  where it threw the exception. Not having to do that makes life easier.
>
> How would this impact continuations?

Not at all. Continuations are something separate. Restartable
exceptions would've used continuations, but allowing all exceptions
to be restartable leads to a number of intractable problems. (Well, I
find them intractable, though clever people might not, which is fine.
Anyone got a clever person handy? :)
--
                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
address@hidden                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk