From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2007-08-14T19:29:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Timeout::Error - catchable?

------=_Part_35061_7861131.1187087375837
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/13/07, F. Senault <fred@lacave.net> wrote:
>
> Le 13 ao=FBt =E0 14:08, Rik Hemsley a =E9crit :
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:04 pm, "F. Senault" <f...@lacave.net> wrote:
> >> Why don't you simply rescue Timeout::Error ?
> >>
> >> Timeout::timeout(1) do
> >>   begin
> >>     sleep(5)
> >>   rescue Timeout::Error
> >>     puts "rescued"
> >>   end
> >> end
> >
> > I thought 'rescue' was a catch-all. Obviously not. Thanks!
>
> Rescue catches everything under StandardError.  If you really want a
> catch-all, you need to "rescue Exception" explicitly.


And don't do that, there are likely things you actually don't want to catch=
.


Fred
> --
> It's obvious that as well as my previous idea for phones with caller-IQ,
> we now also need to have a CallerSPECmark feature to deal with automated
> dialers - something that issues the automated-dialer-equivalent of "550:
> get stuffed - you have the CPU-power of a footstool".      (Tanuki, SDM)
>
>

------=_Part_35061_7861131.1187087375837--