Helmut Eller scripsit:

> R5RS does not have exceptions and in particular did not have an error
> procedure.

Correct, but it does (as do R2RS, R3RS, and R4RS) use the phrase "is
an error".

> A quick search reveals that R6RS does not use the phrase "it is an
> error" once.

That is because R6RS converted all such situations to a requirement to
raise a particular condition object at run time, with the exception
of syntax errors, which may be raised before run time.  There is
anecdotal evidence that this was a major barrier that prevented certain
implementations from adopting R6RS.  R7RS-small, qua successor of R5RS,
returns to the R5RS position.

> Is that your way to shut down criticism?  Good.  It worked.

I regret this interchange, and hope it will not prevent you from providing
further editorial comments.  WG members are a bit crabby after three
long years and seven drafts.

--
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers            John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is      cowan@ccil.org
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

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