> What code? I interpreted that as "all the following code", which feels like an entirely reasonable interpretation to me.
It is. As long as you define "all following code" as the code that would execute from that point forward. If you define "following" as simply the code in the rest of the file then doesn't really make sense in this context I don't why you would mean that.
Obviously the existence of catch statements allows the program to continue from that point but none of that code is following from where the error was (unless you call it again).
> At best your definition is only the very very very beginning of a longer conversation; it doesn't give enough information on its own.
If you want me to write an essay on this, I have actually already written one. But I still think this definition is a good one. It is simple but that's what makes it useful. The entire subject of error handling cannot be distilled into a single sentence definition and that is not what I intended to do.
It is. As long as you define "all following code" as the code that would execute from that point forward. If you define "following" as simply the code in the rest of the file then doesn't really make sense in this context I don't why you would mean that.
Obviously the existence of catch statements allows the program to continue from that point but none of that code is following from where the error was (unless you call it again).
> At best your definition is only the very very very beginning of a longer conversation; it doesn't give enough information on its own.
If you want me to write an essay on this, I have actually already written one. But I still think this definition is a good one. It is simple but that's what makes it useful. The entire subject of error handling cannot be distilled into a single sentence definition and that is not what I intended to do.