From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2007-12-08T06:35:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Clarification of retry change

Brian Mitchell wrote:
> In these cases I could see it being confusing if retry didn't work in
> the block but as a lexically dependent expression on rescue. This is
> currently against the 1.8 behavior where the retry only refers to the
> "some_array.each {|value| retry ...}" part. An example test for this
> difference:

You make a number of great points. I don't like retry in a block in a 
rescue anymore.

> The eval case seems much more obscure. I would follow the rules given
> for break and next inside eval and disallow retry (I think it already
> works this way).

I agree. I'm not a fan of flow control leaking outside eval in any case, 
and I don't see how it's actually useful as much as weird.

> To me the location/scope of the retry expression doesn't matter as
> much as the effect the retry has when run. Requiring retry to be _run_
> in the context of a rescue node (possibly at any level above the
> running code) might make more sense.

Agreed...it seems like retry should be bound to an immediately-enclosing 
rescue body.

- Charlie