From: Dirk Detering <detering@...>
Date: 2002-07-09T18:54:27+09:00
Subject: Re: for ... else ... end

Sean Chittenden schrieb:
> > And what do you suggest with 'ensure' ("done looping")
> > here?
> 
> ensure should catch break... break strikes me as being 
> identical to an exception that's caught at the end of 
> the loop.  

*question-mark above my head*

But ... this does not correlate to the 
'ensure' semantic in begin...end.

There the ensure does not catch anything.
On the contrary it declares coding to run
_everytime_ , *not* regarding exceptions or 
success.

(And to answer my own question:
Regarding the Pickaxe it runs also 
for _uncaught_  exceptions, in which case
the code following the end would _not_ be executed).

> Truthfully though, I
> was more excited about catching the case when a loop wasn't entered
> (ex: 0 rows from the DB), vs when a break is thrown.  

> If you want an
> "else", then use a normal exception block... 

You mean  catch/throw ?
As I've been taught in this thread that catch/throw is
for flow control and exception for error handling.

> though it is nice sugar
> to have in the language I suppose (albeit slightly confusing to the
> uninformed).  <:~)  -sc

Yes ... that's exactly why we talk about 
keywords and semantics ...

Bye 
Det