Howdy, I know I'm late to the party on this (having missed *both* formal comment rounds), but I'm hoping someone can clear up a design decision for me.
The current draft of R6RS suggests the procedures raise and raise-continuable. My question: why make it the responsibility of the raising code to decide if an exception is continuable. Isn't that up to the handler? Say, I have some code which establishes a database connection. If the connection fails, should I make the raise be continuable or not? Under most cases, I'd say that it isn't a continuable exception. However, a programmer may wish to handle the exception by opening an alternate database connection, in which case the exception handler is continuable. Why not handle continuable exceptions the way SISC does, that is, error handlers are invoked with the raised object, and a continuation procedure. If the handler wishes, it can recover from the exception by using the continuation. Perhaps I'm just missing the goals of raise vs. raise-continuable. Can anyone expand on this? When might you choose one or the other? -Ben -- Ben Simon My blog: http://benjisimon.blogspot.com Got a software idea? http://i2x.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
