Per Bothner scripsit:

> Kawa isn't quite consistent here. I think it is plausible
> to make (set! bar (set! foo 32)) be a compile-time error (or at
> least warning), since it is very likely to a bug, and unlikely
> to be actually useful.

Indeed, it's not the best example: a better one is a procedure
that returns an undefined value, rather than a primitive syntax
form.  The idea is that it should be possible to call an unknown
procedure without having to defend oneself against receiving
multiple values quite as carefully as would be required if all
mutators truly returned no values (as opposed to a no-value value).
There are still things like exact-integer-sqrt, of course, that
can trip you up.

> if we didn't have to worry about raise-continuable.

If I were you, I'd just say that raise-continuable is not supported.
It's part of the close JVM integration that Kawa is intended to achieve.

--
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: cowan@ccil.org]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay

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