From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA17458; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:44:55 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA17456 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:44:54 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nexus.stwing.upenn.edu (NEXUS.STWING.UPENN.EDU [165.123.132.61])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6DKibf07539
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:44:38 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from force.stwing.upenn.edu (daemon@force.stwing.upenn.edu [165.123.132.65])
	by nexus.stwing.upenn.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6DKiUT09371
	(using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO)
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from wlovas@localhost)
	by force.stwing.upenn.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6DKiU815182
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:44:29 -0400
From: William Lovas <wlovas@stwing.upenn.edu>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Exceptions and at_exit
Message-ID: <20020713204429.GA15095@force.stwing.upenn.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <874rgjdjku.fsf@foxthompson.net> <87ele721sg.fsf@foxthompson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ele721sg.fsf@foxthompson.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 06:30:23AM -0700, David Fox wrote:
> My confusion about re-raising exceptions was caused by the fact that
> you get different behavior if you say something like
> 
>   try ... with
>     Failure msg -> <do some stuff>; raise (Failure msg)
> 
> vs something like
> 
>   try ... with
>     exn ->
>        begin match exn with Failure msg -> <do some stuff> end;
>        raise exn
> 
> In the second case, you are re-raising the exception, in the first
> you are raising a new exception and your original traceback is lost.

What if you did something like:

    try ... with
        Failure msg as exn -> <do some stuff>; raise exn

Would that leave the original traceback intact?

William
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners