Hi, On Fri 21 May 2010 14:47, Julian Graham <[email protected]> writes:
>> * The R6RS specifies many situations in which a conforming >> implementation must signal a specific error. Guile doesn't really >> care about that too much -- if a correct R6RS program would not hit >> that error, we don't bother checking for it. > > In a lot of these cases, that's because our libraries simply re-export > bindings from Guile's core library or an SRFI. Instead of changing > the error-signaling of the original procedures, we could wrap them a > bit more in the relevant libraries to add argument validation, say, or > to re-throw Guile's core errors as R6RS exceptions. Sure; we'll probably take them case-by-case, accomodating where it makes sense and documenting the incompatibility where it doesn't. It's not like Guile's exception protocol is particularly well-thought-out :P Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
