Hello there! Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Sat 27 Nov 2010 01:08, Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes: > >> to not lose current functionality, `print-exception' and exception >> printer procedures would need a `frame' argument as well, right? > > I guess. I never liked that, though; sounds like a needless tangling of > concerns. What does having the frame give us? Just source, or the > function name, or what? It seems like a message about the context in > which the error occurred could just as well come before the error is > printed out. > > What do you think? What does Ludovic think? :) I don’t think, actually. :-) Well, at first I thought exception printers could be nice. Currently, there’s a single exception printer, which makes assumptions about the arguments to ‘throw’. Namely, it expects (throw KEY FUNC FORMAT-STRING FORMAT-ARG ...), or something like that. When that is honored, exceptions are displayed in a human-readable way, otherwise they are (very) badly printed, which could be improved. OTOH, exceptions are a programming mechanism, not a UI mechanism, so one could argue that it’s up to the application to define how to present exceptions to the user. I think I’m slightly skeptical about system-wide exception printers because of this, and also because system-wide settings are evil. Thanks, Ludo’.
