You actually do a die which doesn't end your script - it gets trapped by the eval and the string you passed die will be put in $@.# MAIN unless ($result = my_sub() ) { # Now you use $result if it's not 0 } # WRAPPER function sub my_sub { eval { _my_sub(@_) }; if ($@) { return $@; } else { return ''; } } # Actual worker... sub _my_sub { # Do your stuff here. If something fails, do a die with a useful error + message. Otherwise, return 0. # For example ... die "Bad data passed in.\n"; }
Now, I personally dislike this type of error-handling because 0 is FALSE and non-zero is TRUE. Thus, you have to flip your thinking the way the C libs force you to and say you're calling the function and hope it "fails" for success. (Sorta like a drug screening ...)
Instead, I would something similar. Instead of passing back '' for success, I'd pass back undef instead.
It seems like a semantic difference, but now your code use TRUE and FALSE the way they intuitively used, to indicate success and failure.# MAIN if (defined ($error = my_sub()) ) { # Now you use $error if it's defined } # WRAPPER function sub my_sub { eval { _my_sub(@_) }; if ($@) { return $@; } else { return undef; } } # Actual worker... sub _my_sub { # Do your stuff here. If something fails, do a die with a useful error + message. Otherwise, return 0. # For example ... die "Bad data passed in.\n"; }
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Idomatic Handling of Subroutine Error
by dragonchild
in thread Idomatic Handling of Subroutine Error
by dvergin
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |