Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:17 -0700 schrieb Elf: > srfi-34 is meaningless without srfi-35 and srfi-36. nothing in srfi-34 > details the actual format of exceptions/conditions.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I consider this separation of concern an advantage of srfi-34 over srfi-12. While it's true that I'm using parts of srfi-35 to encode some of the exception I'm using, this is a mere accident and might change at any time. However I do sometimes simply raise numbers or symbols or other objects (e.g. srfi-9 records), when that appears appropriate to me. Simpler than property conditions. > all of this is self-contained in srfi-12. the reason for srfi-12's withdrawl > was not > because of any flaws inherent in srfi-12, but because william clinger, the > author, disappeared apparently for a bit and therefore there was no > discussion. srfi-34 and related srfis are brittle and encode things in a > nonschemelike way, with a lot of extra parsing and ridiculousness involved. That's true: I view srfi-35 more like an interesting way to encode some types akin to multiple inheritance - though not exactly. Not too interesting. srfi-36 feels somewhat uninteresting to me. But as I said: I have still little interest in that discussion until my code runs. It can't be hard to allow me to raise arbitrary objects and re-establish the old handler during the exception handling. I just can't do it for some mythical reason. /Jörg _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users