From: schneik@...
Date: 2000-04-20T11:12:24-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:02534] Re: 'in' vs. 'into'



Matz writes:
# In message "[ruby-talk:02495] Re: 'in' vs. 'into'"
#     on 00/04/17, Andrew Hunt <andy@Toolshed.Com> writes:
# |
# |  >#    rescue MyException into myVar
# |  >#
# |  >I agree.
# |
# |I like "into" as well, for what it's worth.
#
# Hmm, I've not decided yet.  Here's the list of options:
#
#   * rescue IOError in var
#
#     Current parser accepts this syntax.  No new reserved word
#     introduced.
#
#   * rescue IOError into var
#
#     More descriptive than 'in'.  Introducing new reserved word, which
#     raise backward compatibility problem.

For the time being, I vote for this one, although I think Dave's first
suggestion might be a good choice (but I haven't had time to think
about it).

#   * rescue IOError => var
#
#     No reserved word introduced.  Symbols may ambiguous.
#
#   * exception
#
#     This option introcudes new global function `exception' which
#     returns the $! value.  No reserved word introduced.  I think this
#     simple way.

What happens if you have recoverable exceptions in exception handlers
spread across multiple modules written by different people? Would you
be able to rely on "$!"? (Would the very first thing that you would
need to do is make a local copy of "$!"?)

#   * Exception::last
#
#     This may more descriptive than mere `exception'.  But I feel it's
#     too long to type in.  You know I'm lazy.  Notice `ruby' is 2
#     letter shorter than `python'?

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)