On Aug 28 11:21, Neil Jerram wrote: > A common requirement is to be able to show as much useful context as > possible when a Scheme program hits an error. The most immediate > information about an error is the kind of error that it is - such as > "division by zero" - and any parameters that the code which signalled > the error chose explicitly to provide. This information originates with > the `error' or `throw' call (or their C code equivalents, if the error > is detected by C code) that signals the error, and is passed > automatically to the handler procedure of the innermost applicable > `catch', `lazy-catch' or `with-throw-handler' expression.
I've another situation that doesn't get executed inside a `catch' block. For instance, I need to make some variable definitions just before executing related code via scm_c_with_throw_handler(). The problem is, in these definitions when an error occurs (e.g. not enough memory in case of a scm_from_locale_string() call) I'm not able to handle it and program exists without my permission. In such a situation, should I try to place my whole definition related code into a SCM function and execute in a catch scope or is there any other way to fix this? [If you want to take a look at the related code, see place_scheme_args(), guile_eval_str() and handle_scm_res() functions called inside plscheme_func_handler() function in http://cvs.pgfoundry.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/plscheme/plscheme/plscheme.c?rev=1.4 URL.] Regards. P.S. Thanks for this paper. It's quite helpful. Now I'm planning to power up my buggy scm_c_with_throw_handler() code with that make-stack stuff. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user