Question, as it has come up in this thread twice, and that is the issue of die() vs exit((). The Camel states that one should not exit a subroutine when an error needs to be trapped. But if not, is die necessary, or is exit sufficient?

Comments?

What the Camel does or doesn't say is mostly irrelevant. If your coding standards allow for exit() within a subroutine, then use it. However, most of the community has come to expect die() within subroutines and exit() (if it's even used) from the main scope.

Now, die() and exit() do different things. The biggest difference is

eval {
    print "Inside\n";
    die;
};
print "Outside\n";
----
Inside
Outside
[download]

vs.

eval {
    print "Inside\n";
    exit;
};
print "Outside\n";
----
Inside
[download]

exit() exits, end of story. die() allows for some manner of error trapping. This is the main reason why die() is preferred within subroutines. You may want to reuse that subroutine somewhere else that wants to be able to trap the abnormal termination. Also, die() triggers $SIG{DIE}, which can also be useful to trap.

---

My wife's blog

You can trap an exit (termination of a script) as well.

END { print "Outside"; }
eval {
    print "Inside\n";
    exit;
};
print "Outside\n";
----
Inside
Outside
[download]

-- gam3
A picture is worth a thousand words, but takes 200K.

I would say not, for one thing it limits the possibility of reuse in your code if you are to issue the untrappable exit() in your subroutine.

/J\