From: Jez W. <je...@je...> - 2003-12-20 13:51:49
|
All, Would anyone find a generic error handler useful? Instead of win::gui = displaying the message box when an error occurs it would instead call a = function passing in the error string. This would allow the application = to do logging or respond in other ways. Thoughts? Cheers, jez. |
From: Glenn L. <pe...@ne...> - 2003-12-20 17:54:57
|
Sounds pretty reasonable. For backward compatibility, it should probably be done as a hook type setting... if the hook is called and provides an error handler, then the error handler is used, otherwise the message box gets displayed. And maybe the error handler returns a value that says whether it handled it or not, and if not, the message box gets displayed then too. Of course, a nicer enhancement would be if the error messages were more directly related to the error that occurred. A reference to an undefined value "somewhere" in an XS function call is less useful than one that would pinpoint the variable of interest, and the line of code. Maybe such enhancements are impossible, but I know from experience that eliminating a couple such references from Win32::GUI was like looking for a needle in a haystack. On approximately 12/20/2003 5:53 AM, came the following characters from the keyboard of Jez White: > All, > > Would anyone find a generic error handler useful? Instead of win::gui > displaying the message box when an error occurs it would instead call a > function passing in the error string. This would allow the application > to do logging or respond in other ways. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > > jez. > > -- Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/ =========================== Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It's ridiculous. -- Bill Gates And here is why it is ridiculous: The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26 billion on revenue of $2.81 billion. --from Reuters via http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs and security problems? Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff. WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment. |
From: Jez W. <je...@je...> - 2003-12-22 11:48:08
|
I'll have a play and see what I can come up with. Cheers, jez. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn Linderman" <pe...@ne...> To: "Jez White" <je...@je...> Cc: "guihackers" <per...@li...> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [perl-win32-gui-hackers] Generic Error handler > Sounds pretty reasonable. For backward compatibility, it should > probably be done as a hook type setting... if the hook is called and > provides an error handler, then the error handler is used, otherwise the > message box gets displayed. And maybe the error handler returns a value > that says whether it handled it or not, and if not, the message box gets > displayed then too. > > Of course, a nicer enhancement would be if the error messages were more > directly related to the error that occurred. A reference to an > undefined value "somewhere" in an XS function call is less useful than > one that would pinpoint the variable of interest, and the line of code. > Maybe such enhancements are impossible, but I know from experience > that eliminating a couple such references from Win32::GUI was like > looking for a needle in a haystack. > > On approximately 12/20/2003 5:53 AM, came the following characters from > the keyboard of Jez White: > > > All, > > > > Would anyone find a generic error handler useful? Instead of win::gui > > displaying the message box when an error occurs it would instead call a > > function passing in the error string. This would allow the application > > to do logging or respond in other ways. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > > > jez. > > > > > > -- > Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/ > =========================== > Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it > offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It's ridiculous. > -- Bill Gates > > And here is why it is ridiculous: > The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26 > billion on revenue of $2.81 billion. > --from Reuters via > http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html > > So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more > investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of > reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs > and security problems? Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff. > WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. > Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's > Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. > Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Perl-Win32-GUI-Hackers mailing list > Per...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-win32-gui-hackers |