Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- From: Andreas Leitgeb <avl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Jan 2007 17:59:25 GMT
Bryan Oakley <oakley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don Porter wrote:
Bryan Oakley wrote:Yes. return -code error doesn't behave according to the documentation IMO.
I'm seeing what looks like buggy behavior with "return -code error" inIs it at odds with any documentation?
8.4.14.
I don't think it's a bug.
[return -code error] is designed to make the *current procedure*
behave like the command "error", not to be equivalent to [error]
itself.
catch {return -code error} is 2(return) , not 1(error)
Prior to 8.5, there is no way to recognize the "-code error"
from the information provided by catch, if the return happens
immediately inside the catch-body.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- From: Bryan Oakley
- Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- References:
- bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- From: Bryan Oakley
- Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- From: Don Porter
- Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- From: Bryan Oakley
- bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- Prev by Date: Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- Next by Date: Signal Extension (package Signal)
- Previous by thread: Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- Next by thread: Re: bug in 8.4.14 return -code error?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|