Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error

Joel Brobecker
2009-11-25T16:25:16Z

> Why "do_record_message" cannot be a caller?
> It be a caller in a long time.
> I call "record_message". You don't like it.
> I put it to "do_record_message". You don't like it too.

It did not seem to me that the feedback was on the function name,
but rather on the interface of the function.

> I don't like use TRY_CATCH or catch_errors directly.

I confess that I don't like catch_errors, because of the need to
artificially create a container type that contains all the function
parameters. But TRY_CATCH, on the other hand, solves that problem.
What is it that you don't like about TRY_CATCH. As far as I can tell,
the syntax is very close to C++, no?

In any case, if you really want to have either possibilities
(record_message with or without exception protection), how about
two functions, named: record_message and safe_record_message.
The latter is just a TRY_CATCH wrapper around the former.
Perhaps that could be an acceptable compromise...

--
Joel