Re: Towards a reasonable unwinding flow-control semantics.

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

PS> Okay, :-) Got a better syntax?  Would you want the option of
PS> throwing up n (> 1) levels?

I've seen the term SIGNAL vs. RAISE used.

I don't think we should. That gives the callee too much intimate
knowledge of the caller. 

Lets keep it simple. I'm sure we can keep a slot open for an extra
argument.

Hmm, would the direct object slot be ameneable to a attribute? Would
that help disambiguate things?

        foo :attr(value) @args

Would this give some future growth?

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183