On 2011-04-30, at 22:26, John Cowan wrote:
> Yes, but that's a matter of self-discipline in module writing.  If
> you make the effect of (raise 4) implementation-dependent, there is
> no guarantee that it will be caught by the exception subsystem at
> all.  Perhaps you meant that some object is raised, but which object is
> implementation-dependent?

No, I don't think so. I would like WG1 to consider (raise 4) illegal, as well as (raise x) for any value of x not produced by some variation of MAKE-ERROR-OBJECT. Then WG2 can decide to allow additional kinds of objects to be raised, without breaking compatibility with WG1. In my naïvete, I felt that making the action for (raise 4) be implementation-dependent would do this, but I'm happy with any other strategy that leads to the same result.

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