I've never seen that before, Ben. Can you link me? Just pushed version 0.1.1 with these suggestions:
- Tasks are now simple functions, not macros - Using metadata to keep track of handlers rather than an atom. - Fixed namespace collision issue - Pass original arguments of task function to error handler Any way we can make this better? On Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:22:30 PM UTC-5, Ben wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Michael Drogalis > <madru...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:57:56 AM UTC-5, Adam Clements wrote: > >> One thing that worries me though. While this is fine for examples where > >> you simply log the exception and move on, what if you need to do > something > >> more complicated with the actual data? Say for example you need to > >> queue/trigger a retry, you no longer have your local bindings to work > with > >> so you'd have to go back to a normal try/catch (disclaimer - didn't > read the > >> paper, just going off the code and your comments) > > > > > > I agree. There's certainly cases where the handler will want to restart > the > > task and need access to the original bindings. I'll tinker around with a > > clean way to do this. Open for suggestions. > > Isn't this what Common Lisp's condition system allowed? (And wasn't > there a condition-like library for Clojure?) > > -- > Ben Wolfson > "Human kind has used its intelligence to vary the flavour of drinks, > which may be sweet, aromatic, fermented or spirit-based. ... Family > and social life also offer numerous other occasions to consume drinks > for pleasure." [Larousse, "Drink" entry] > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
