Re^2: Use of "die" in OO modules

in reply to Re: Use of "die" in OO modules
in thread Use of "die" in OO modules

And I second the idea of not using a return code to signify what failed; I do however condone letting undef indicate that there is an error (that can be inspected some other, appropriate, way) if there's no potential for undef as a valid data return.

[Jon]

Comment on Re^2: Use of "die" in OO modules

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Use of "die" in OO modules by perrin (Chancellor) on Jan 18, 2007 at 22:14 UTC
Uh, undef is a return code. I don't think that's any better than saying "79" indicates a failure.	[reply]
Re^4: Use of "die" in OO modules by theguvnor (Chaplain) on Jan 19, 2007 at 00:51 UTC
I said: a return code to signify what failed; (emphasis added). I fully realise that undef is a return code. It does not, however, carry information about what failed and why. The lack of defined return code is my signal to go off and look at my object/class and get the error. That works for me (and as bryan notes above, is somewhat common in CPAN modules). Your mileage might vary, as they say ;-) [Jon]	[reply]
Re^4: Use of "die" in OO modules by jrockway (Acolyte) on Jan 18, 2007 at 23:32 UTC
mmm, 69 == success.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom