On 8/27/06, Mat Schaffer <schapht / gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Would this be unreasonable?
> > >>
> > >> foo {
> > >>    blah
> > >>    rescue ExceptionA
> > >>      handle A
> > >>    rescue ExceptionB
> > >>      handle B
> > >>    ensure
> > >>      finish things
> > >> }
> > >>
> Well re-proposing it anyway.  I'm mostly curious if there's some
> fundamental problem with it that I'm not seeing.  Since this
> particular syntax wasn't proposed the last time the discussion went
> around.

IIRC, Matz thinks it's ugly (I can't say I disagree, even though I
desire the functionality). I think it's one of the few cases where
it's worth the ugliness to be orthogonal here.

Most people won't like how {} with rescue looks and probably switch to
do/end if the need rescue. The *only* think I can think of is maybe:

foo { bar rescue nil }

Is that still the post version?

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca