On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 02:40:37PM +0900, Paul Brannan wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 06:40:16PM +0900, ts wrote:
> >  Why you don't use Thread::abort_on_exception ?
> 
> There are two issues here:
> 
> 1) The default behavior is to not abort and not print anything.  This is
>    not intuitive and can cause problems for new users.
> 
> 2) If I want a message printed to the console, but I don't want my
>    program necessarily to abort, then I must wrap the thread in a
>    begin/rescue/end block.  This is a) a little bit verbose, hence the
>    RCR, and b) printing out the exception the same way as Ruby does is
>    not a simple task; it requires some thinking to get it right.

Thank you for stating this so clearly.  It's not just for new users
that it causes problems.  I know about this and it still catches me by
surprise.  I've often wanted a print-on-exception behavior, and would
prefer that as the default.

        Wayne Conrad