On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:20:36 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@...> wrote:
> > > That being said I don't like refraining from "return value
> > > approach" towards "exception handling approach"
> > 
> > nonfatal's not an exception handling approach. Think of it as a
> > utility like 'nice', 'ionice', 'xargs', 'env' or 'hilite'.
> 
> Le sigh..
> Replacing return value with die ("throw") *and* providing 'nonfatal'
> as mechanism to catch and ignore what's been thrown is obviously
> "exception handling approach" (not literally that is, I don't have to
> recall the semantics of \" character) - every respected software
> engineer will see that.

That isn't what nonfatal does. It does not in any way catch and ignore
what's been thrown. It prevents the fatal notification from being sent
in the first place.

die is not a throw operation, never has been a throw operation (see the
whole "die in subshells" mess) and isn't going to be a throw operation.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh