Scott David Daniels <Scott.Daniels@[...].Org>  writes:

>  Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > ...
> > Have to admit tho, a continue feature might be useful. Some languages have
> > this, don't they? The thing is, Where exactly to continue? Should you retry
> > whatever raised the exception, continue just after it, at the beginning of
> > that line, or what?
> >
>  See this older thread:
>     <http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3edd6118%241%40nntp0.pdx.net>
> 
>  Xerox's experience (in deliberately removing the "continue from
>  exception" language feature) I found very instructive.

Did this language support working interactively? If so I'd be pretty surprised
to hear that no one found it useful to be able to manually fix things and
continue execution; not being able to do so is presumably my number one gripe
with python [1] -- it annoys me no end if I need to start an expensive
computation from scratch because some trivial and easily fixable problem
occured towards the end of the computation (sometimes it is possible to
salvage stuff by hand by pickling things from the appropriate post-mortem
frame, but I'd *much* prefer being able to say: foo=some_value; resume).

'as


Footnotes: 
[1]  Number 2 would be the stupid try: finally: idiom which also seems to
     screw up tracebacks (which has occasionally led me to get rid of them
     completely while debugging -- surely not a good thinge). My other gripes
     are again related to python's limitations for interactive software
     development -- I rather like python, but I really wish it did that better.