my method is similar, but different...

## let's say bar is a method in foo
sub bar
{
  my( $self, @args )= @_;
  eval { $self->method( @args ) };
  $@ and $self->raise_error( @_ ) and return undef;
}

## called like:
my $foo= foo->new();

my $result= $foo->bar( @args )
  or warn $foo->Error();
[download]

the method sets an error and returns undef, allowing the caller to deal with the error as it sees fit. of course, you might want to handle a method that can return 0 by using defined

~Particle *accelerates*

of course, you might want to handle a method that can return 0 by using defined

Or use the trick that some other modules use: return "0E0" or "0 but true" for zero, as a string. These are both true and 0, and do not produce warnings when converted into a number, the former because it's a normal floating point format, the latter because it's a hardcoded exception in perl.

Now I come to think of it: you can use any normal format for zero, as long as it's not "0", for example "0.0".

Cool.. that's the way I like to handle errors too; but I always wonder if it's the *best* way. This is an interesting thread - Ovid++

Jon

Personally I think the following little trick/modification makes for cleaner code... (and I think that raise_error makes more sense if it contains the error message returned...)

sub bar
{
  my( $self, @args )= @_;
  eval { $self->method( @args ); 1} 
       or $self->raise_error( $@, @_ ) and return undef;
}
[download]

If you can contrive to make raise_error() return undef you can make it even cleaner

sub bar
{
  my( $self, @args )= @_;
  eval { $self->method( @args ); 1} 
       or return $self->raise_error( $@, @_ );
}
[download]

--- demerphq
my friends call me, usually because I'm late....

warn " do_command failed with the following error \n\n@_" if ("@_" ne "");

Of course you meant $@, right? ;-)

Jon