Andrew Barnert writes:
I don’t like the idea either; but I think I like your version even less.
It reads perfectly well, but with the wrong meaning. Even though I know what you’re intending, I can’t make myself read that as result getting bound to what f returns, only as result getting bound to the exception.
No, you don't know what I was intending. ;-) *I* did intend 'result' to be bound to the exception (that's *why* I changed the order of clauses), but I think you're right: *Soni* intended it to bound to the return of the handler. We'll have to ask to be sure, though...
clearly result is getting bound to something to do with f.
Well, I had in mind that it would be f's *argument* (what else are you going to pass to the handler?) and have the usual semantics of giving a name to the exception in case you wanted further processing in the body.