Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo (18 May 2011 14:29 UTC)
(missing)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo (20 May 2011 10:46 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Aaron W. Hsu (20 May 2011 17:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo (20 May 2011 17:17 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Alaric Snell-Pym (18 May 2011 14:40 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo (18 May 2011 15:15 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Jim Rees (18 May 2011 16:22 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Jim Rees (18 May 2011 16:58 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo (18 May 2011 17:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling John Cowan (18 May 2011 19:04 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.7. Exception Handling Andy Wingo 18 May 2011 15:15 UTC

On Wed 18 May 2011 16:39, Alaric Snell-Pym <alaric@snell-pym.org.uk> writes:

> In which case, the re-raise if no clause matches would rely on having
> preserved the original dynamic state by keeping a copy of the
> continuation of RAISE around. Or, rather, a continuation captured just
> within RAISE before the handler is invoked that, if it actually
> continues, causes the re-raise - having re-wound the dynamic state...

That is crazy :)  We're not talking just about parameters; there are
dynamic-wind guards, etc to think about, and rewinding those does not
sound like something that you want to do as part of your error-handling
mechanism.

Could this not be a bug in the SRFI-34 spec?

  http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-34/mail-archive/msg00013.html

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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