From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2006-05-19T02:18:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Rescue clauses on do/end blocks?

Ross Bamford wrote:
> Does that mean that with the proposed syntax, to rescue an exception
> from this File.open, we'd have to use:
> 
> 	begin
> 	  File.open('somefile') do |f|
> 	    puts f.read
> 	  rescue
> 	    # exception from f.read
> 	  end 
> 	rescue
> 	  # exception from File.open
> 	end

As I imagine it right now, rescue clauses on do/end blocks would only 
rescue exceptions raised *inside* that block -- to rescue exceptions 
raised with the method the block is attached to, one must wrap the 
method with begin/end.

>> But I like the devil's advocate approach, it makes the proposals sharper :)
> 
> :) In truth, I think I'm in favour of this change, especially if it
> could be done so that the rescue catches exceptions from the block _as
> well_ as those from the method to which the block is attached (if any).

I'm not sure I'd like that -- I see a block attached to a method call as 
being, in some sense, a child of that call, another kind of argument if 
you will; having the child rescue exceptions raised by the parent seems 
unintuitive to me, though others may feel different.

People, feel free to chime in.


Daniel