> |> Not in the current implementation.  Besides we should define first
> |> what is going to happen on exceptional situation when exception is
> |> turned off.
> |
> |You mean if the exception isn't being ignored?  It should be raised as
> |a normal exception would and left to the current stack.
> 
> No.  I meant if an exception was ignored, the procedure keeps going
> without satisfying assumption.  For example,
> 
> |  Dir.mkdir('/usr')
> |  Dir.mkdir('/usr/ports')
> |  Dir.mkdir('/usr/ports/databases')
> |  Dir.mkdir('/usr/ports/databases/postgresql-devel')
> 
> If you failed to mkdir('/usr') for any reason, successive mkdirs might
> be meaningless.   Maybe I have to check out Common Lisp error system.

Correct.... which'd be the point of the ignore block.  Orignally the
thought was to just do Errno::EEXISTS.enable = false, but then someone
had the idea of using a block.  Problem with a block would be that
inorder to continue the sequence of commands above, the proc would
have to know what instruction it left off on and resume there.  :-/
Not an easy problem and more along the lines of, "gee wiz that'd be
nice while writing chump scripts while I've got my sys admin hat on."
-sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden