>>>>>>>>>Hi, one thing I will love to see in Sedna is Try/Catch working on SPT functions instead of using Aerror(). It will be good if TRY/CATCH traps all kind of errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Luis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nice. Nicer would be if TRY/CATCH could trap all errors.
>>>>>>>>Cetin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't agree here.
>>>>>>>ODBC, COM, Files access are external operations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and it is very better if they return a state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You considers an async ODBC fetching,
>>>>>>>that fails during the fetch in backgroud,
>>>>>>>where is the CATCH that it captures the error?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A mixed model is very confused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Different discourse the is implemented all with mechanisms of multithread callbacks,
>>>>>>>but this is far years light from VFP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fabio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I might want that. Try/Catch is not mandatory. There are cases where I'd like a try/catch.
>>>>>>Cetin
>>>>>
>>>>>I would prefer that they integrated Error() in the stack of the TRY so that
>>>>>VPF accept a THROW or a ERROR into the Error event.
>>>>
>>>>Might be. Honestly I'm not a fan of Try/Catch.
>>>
>>>Why are'nt you Cetin? Any interesting information to share?
>>
>>I ceertainly can't speak for Cetin, but one glaring problem with it is that what it DOESN'T catch isn't documented in a ny place that I have found. And we know it doesn't catch everything.
>
>I'm sure, nobody, on this planet,
>can say exactly, what "CATCH" catches or it doesn't catch.

I don't recall that problem ever being mentioned over here on the UT.

Would'nt it mean that it's useless then?