On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:51:10PM +0900, ES wrote:
> On Thu, March 3, 2005 12:02 am, Jos Backus said:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:18:01PM +0900, ES wrote:
> >> On Wed, March 2, 2005 12:04 am, Jos Backus said:
> > [snip]
> >> It'd be great fun if exception handling could *literally* be described
> >> parallel to the method :)
> >
> > I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. It sounds like you want a
> > special kind of method attribute that is itself a method that is invoked under
> > certain circumstances?
> 
> Oh, no, more of a concrete separation of exception handling from the method
> body: conceptually think IDE-level[1]. You specify the correct code path in
> your method (i.e. write it like nothing could ever go wrong), then double-click
> on the method name and it brings up a little window where you can enter all
> of the exception handling code[2]. Obviously this in particular is more a
> convenience/clutterlessness enhancement, but it might help in redirecting
> exception processing back to 'handling' instead of 'reporting'.
 
Okay, I think I understand the IDE analogy. So these around-methods are a way
of implementing this at the language level (I know nothing about AOP btw)?
Sounds interesting...

[example snipped]

-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com