On 2011-05-02, at 07:18, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2011 06:35:59 -0400, Alaric Snell-Pym
> <alaric@snell-pym.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Same here. I wasn't suggesting standardising it, merely that for
>> implementations that have this concept, a way of providing it across
>> ERROR exceptions and more complex hierarchical exceptions would be nice.
>
> This was discussed extensively, and as yet, while we would all like
> something like this, we have not been able to find a way to do it that
> accurately reflects current practice well enough for widespread adoption.

I found this recent discussion interesting, but somewhat tangential to my original proposal, which attempted merely to make error handling usable in a WG1 setting. I'm quite happy with the object raised by ERROR being implementation-defined in WG1. Accessing the message and irritants of an error gives you about the level of functionality enjoyed by LOGO programmers 30 years ago: they could catch errors and write out the message produced by an error. I feel comfortable saying that this part of the proposal in no way reflects new language design, but merely long-standing practice.

On the subject of (raise 4), I would be dubious of any argument about exception types based upon errno. :)

-- vincent
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports