|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling Andy Wingo (02 May 2011 10:20 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Alaric Snell-Pym
(02 May 2011 10:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Andy Wingo
(02 May 2011 10:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Alaric Snell-Pym
(02 May 2011 12:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Aaron W. Hsu
(02 May 2011 14:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Aaron W. Hsu
(02 May 2011 14:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Vincent Manis
(02 May 2011 15:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Aaron W. Hsu
(03 May 2011 00:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Vincent Manis
(03 May 2011 01:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
Vincent Manis
(03 May 2011 01:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling
John Cowan
(03 May 2011 07:04 UTC)
|
On Mon 02 May 2011 11:51, Alaric Snell-Pym <alaric@snell-pym.org.uk> writes: > (EXCEPTION? foo) > (EXCEPTION->STRING foo) > ...and for advanced implementations, (EXCEPTION-BACKTRACE foo) etc... This assumes a mode of debugging after the stack is unwound, instead of debugging before throwing the exception. In the latter case, not only do you have the possibility to restart, you don't need to reify anything to have access to a backtrace. I don't think this is the sort of thing that a Scheme report should standardize. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports