Re^2: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad?

Please forgive necromancy.

In the case I just hit, I'm doing this:

CLIENT: while (!exitflag) {
    eval {
         # Various things that might throw exceptions
         if (blah blah) {
             next CLIENT;
         }
    };
    if ($@) {
        # Exception handling
    }
}
[download]

So, I'm not just exiting the eval, I'm exiting considerably more. AND I'm doing it by an explicit label, not implicitly, so I really shouldn't be confused about what I'm doing. I'd really prefer not to get this warning in the case when I'm using a loop label to exit a particular loop.

(The big while loop is handling client connects as they come in, the eval inside it is to prevent unexpected errors from killing the whole server; they just abort the one connection. This is test code, the full version will fork of course, once it can handle the simple case.)

Comment on Re^2: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? by Anonymous Monk on Sep 24, 2011 at 02:01 UTC
Please forgive necromancy. Hi New questions go in Seekers Of Perl Wisdom Welcome You might wish to review The Perl Monks Guide to the Monastery, How do I post a question effectively?, Where should I post X? $ perl -wle " 0+$foo; LABEL: for(1,2){ eval { next LABEL; }; }" Useless use of addition (+) in void context at -e line 1. Name "main::foo" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1. Use of uninitialized value $foo in addition (+) at -e line 1. Exiting eval via next at -e line 1. Exiting eval via next at -e line 1. $ perl -wle " no warnings q[exiting]; 0+$foo; LABEL: for(1,2){ eval { + next LABEL; }; }" Useless use of addition (+) in void context at -e line 1. Name "main::foo" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1. Use of uninitialized value $foo in addition (+) at -e line 1. [download] Related discussions Exiting subroutine via next, #29238: exiting eval via last	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? by dd-b (Pilgrim) on Oct 17, 2011 at 20:48 UTC
In my mind, this wasn't a new question, it was a continuation of a discussion I'd found. Isn't the idea of searching first to avoid starting new questions when reasonably possible? Anyway, thanks for your suggestion of the "no warnings" pragma.	[reply]
Re^5: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 18, 2011 at 11:00 UTC
Isn't the idea of searching first to avoid starting new questions when reasonably possible? No, the idea is to find answers to your own questions :) If the old thread doesn't answer your question, you create a new one, and say: `I got this question ... saw this old related thread ( [id://104789] ), but it doesn't answer my question exactly` In my mind, this wasn't a new question, it was a continuation of a discussion I'd found. This is common , but consider the dates. Hofmator, whom you asked a question, hasn't visited perlmonks in 5 years. The discussion you continued is 10+ years old. Sure any one of the perlmonks could notice your node and reply, but only Hofmator is guaranteed to notice, if he returns and has `/msg me when a reply arrives` turned on:) and as you've noticed, it isn't the same as asking all the perlmonks for help, all you got was me :) necromancy tends to fly under the radar , I try to hunt for these things :)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? by jdporter (Paladin) on May 05, 2012 at 01:25 UTC
Pay no attention to the troll behind the mask.	[reply]
Re^6: Exiting eval via next: is that so bad? by Anonymous Monk on May 05, 2012 at 08:10 UTC


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks