Re^5: conditional catch-blocks 'try {} catch(COND) { }'

> That would allow the following syntax that at least looks similar to try-catch in other languages:
try { # ... } catchif TypeError => { # ... } catchif RangeError => { # ... } catch { ...
[download]

May I see a POC with prototypes for that?

Because this

> sub catchif ($&;@)

will require a sub before and a comma after the block.

try {
    # ...
} catchif TypeError => sub {
    # ...
}, catchif RangeError => sub {
    # ...
}, catch { ...
[download]

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^5: conditional catch-blocks 'try {} catch(COND) { }' Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: conditional catch-blocks 'try {} catch(COND) { }' by afoken (Chancellor) on Sep 21, 2021 at 18:54 UTC
May I see a POC with prototypes for that? Because this `> sub catchif ($&;@)` will require a sub before and a comma after the block. You are right. It would have been too easy. ;-) perlsub is quite clear: An `&` requires an anonymous subroutine, which, if passed as the first argument, does not require the `sub` keyword or a subsequent comma. I did not remember the "first argument" exception and assumed an anonymous sub would work in any position. Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: conditional catch-blocks 'try {} catch(COND) { }' by LanX (Saint) on Sep 21, 2021 at 21:33 UTC
> assumed an anonymous sub would work in any position. Oh that would be so nice... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]