On 05/02/11 11:51, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi Alaric,

Hi Andy! WHAT'S THE HAPS? ;-)

>> 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.
>
> Still, it seems that you are promoting a data type for exceptions, and
> my point is that sometimes that data is an implicit function of the
> state of the system, instead of being all reified and packed into one
> object.

Yeah, such procedures should only exist on implementations where it made
sense, and not standardised - as many implementations just don't work
that way (and shouldn't need to). But some implementations might be able
to support that, in which case, it might be handy!

As an aside, I've often wondered if it might be
desirable/possible/practical to offer an interface to introspect
continuations by extracting the chain of closures they might be
represented as / be isomorphic to, which is closely related to the
notion of "call chain" in stack-defined execution models. Which would be
far more generic than a Java-esque "backtraces exist inside exception
objects" system...

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

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