From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-03-05T23:59:43+09:00
Subject: Re: rescue inside block -> syntax error


"Joe Mason" <joe@notcharles.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnc4h1oi.ah6.joe@gate.notcharles.ca...
> In article <c29n0n$1qbumm$1@ID-52924.news.uni-berlin.de>, Robert Klemme
wrote:
> >> But wouldn't the ruby way be to write this?
> >
> > No, because that would duplicate cleanup code.
> >
> >>  container.each do |obj|
> >>    processor.create_in_a_way_that_might_throw do |proc|
> >
> > I gues you rather mean
> >
> > ProcessorClass.create_in_a_way_that_might_throw do |proc|
>
> Right.
>
> >
> >>      proc.do_work()
> >>      proc.do_more_work()
> >>    ensure
> >>      proc.cleanup()
> >
> > The cleanup wrong here because it is done in method
> > create_in_a_way_that_might_throw() in this scheme after the yield (see
> > File.open() and below).
>
> Oh, that's an ensure, not an except.  I was reading too fast (and I
> still find Ruby's exception keywords hard to sort out, since they're so
> different from everything else I've used.
>
> Still, I think my example would be a good way to write a rescue clause
> for actions only taken in case of failure, and which would benefit from
> being able to put rescue in arbitrary blocks.

Yeah, it sounds more reasonable for rescue clauses than ensure clauses.
Agreed.

Regards

    robert