in reply to Why <c>eval {...};if ($@) { die $@ } else { ...</c> ???

Actually the eval { ... }; if ($@) { ... } pattern is dangerous. Consider this example:

use 5.010; use strict; use warnings; sub DESTROY { eval { "no error here" } } eval { my $x = bless {}; die "an error here"; }; say $@ ? "ERROR" : "no error caught";

This reports no error caught, because $x goes out of scope, the DESTROY method is called, which in turn executes an eval that rests $@. Hooray for global variables. (This is one of the reasons that Perl 6 has context variables instead).

A safer meme is

my $success = eval { ...; 1 }

So back to the question, what's the difference? It's that in the case with eval and if the code doesn't work as expected if some DESTROY method forgot to localize $@.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why <c>eval {...};if ($@) { die $@ } else { ...</c> ???
by shmem (Chancellor) on Apr 04, 2009 at 13:52 UTC

    Actually, eval without diagnostics after the call and without localizing $@ is what's dangerous here, not the pattern itself. And that doesn't apply to DESTROY only, although not with such catastrophic consequences. Like trampling on $_. Yes, "hooray for global variables"... ;-)