Re: Strings and the like.
Irv Mullins wrote:
snip...will get to this later
>If we could return a meaninful result from the type() routine, that would open
>up the way for us to define as many variable types as we desired, without
>breaking any existing code. It would also allow useful error recovery routines
>to be written: call a user-written error-handling routine from within the
>type()
>check, which could either allow the user to fix the problem by modifying the
>return data to as to be more acceptable, or to exit gracefully.
>
>Irv
What a beautiful idea for extending the language with absolute minimum
violence. I am not sure without some further checking that this will answer
all possible error situations for which an error routine would be needed. On
the downside, type checking seems to incur some rather draconian
overhead, so this might be a purely practical objection to this construction
where error handling is really needed and type checking would normally be
turned off.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
