From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Git.pm Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:20:29 -0700 Message-ID: <7vr4usnh2q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20120426203136.GA15432@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Subho Banerjee , Jonathan Nieder , Tim Henigan , git To: demerphq X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 10 18:20:38 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SSW6Y-0002bR-C9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 10 May 2012 18:20:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753774Ab2EJQUd (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:33 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:33349 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752906Ab2EJQUd (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:33 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5A6729D; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:32 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=j9k+YY5iYXQvglpwZx4pBQse/Lo=; b=ZqFkXH wpDQYkEZaBa1aQL2gKJicyqgoFov3sHj9/jdyyQ4+j+2XEyFx/urxkX0XUQVjsEo kSDWXSJD/NWrW5qBcmmb+a/TG8mWTqHjZ2g1eztuNh8kxeOXJr24KYgsDcwwyONf yACzoXxr+TfoAPxhggwcwvVeOR7kFZ6MDeucs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=aSBeYS5n+aTHYkv0olPL5IrHCxmKg3La IWSXuqYoTYpe4X4nLn5231uv/UUVih0qFnxqy9hVREfl0KrcgTkVAM28lhhYXkAd PSl1v4J+gNx4PZRv0k+zx39qLF4PadnWpZWIXp6f4JhNd46yp67TWgZi7D4wimmf C2iztkkQ5Fg= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128C8729C; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71969729B; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (demerphq@gmail.com's message of "Thu, 10 May 2012 17:54:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 103CCB9E-9ABC-11E1-8200-FC762E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: demerphq writes: > Similar logic for Try::Tiny. Why bother with it? It is pretty close to > a fancy way to write eval { ...; 1 } or do { .... }; It is just one > more module for people to misunderstand, and then make bugs with. I personally like the approach to stick to bare "eval {}; if ($@) { ... }" sequence, as it is much more explicit and easier to understand what is happening underneath. IOW, I like what I read in demerphq's message. But it could be that these many people who wrote these different catch/throw things did so for a reason that I am missing, and if that is the case, I am interested to hear what benefit we will get from using them. "It looks more familiar to people with (your favorite language)" could be it, but then I would not regret missing such a reason ;-) Thanks.