Re^2: subroutine prototypes still bad?

That's actually a good example of why prototypes are *bad*. It looks so much like normal Perl code, one might be tempted to return from the catch block.

sub {
   try {
      ...
   } catch Exception with {
      return 0;
   };
   return 1;
}
[download]

However, a return in catch block only exits the catch block! The above function would always return 1.

Comment on Re^2: subroutine prototypes still bad? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: subroutine prototypes still bad? by dmitri (Priest) on Jun 13, 2007 at 14:09 UTC
I think it depends on what you are used to. I recently had to write some Java code, and I found myself putting 'return' statements outside of try/catch, even though it's fine in Java. Since I use mostly Perl, this behavior does not confuse me at all.	[reply]
Re^4: subroutine prototypes still bad? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 13, 2007 at 14:19 UTC
To me, that sounds like you're doing somthing so dangerous that you won't even do it in a language where it's safe in fear of getting it wrong in Perl.	[reply]
Re^5: subroutine prototypes still bad? by dmitri (Priest) on Jun 13, 2007 at 16:50 UTC
I was just making a point about being used to things. C programmers are used to allocating memory by hand, for instance. It's just a matter of what the language gives you.	[reply]