On 7/15/07, Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* * <i>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?</i> Both have to agree. So, there is an offer that says "it may be meaningful to continue" and an acceptance that say "ok, then, continue".
In general, think of the raising code and handler as separately developed.
Only the raising code knows if there is handling in place for continuing. Only the handler knows if the dynamic context wants to continue, if possible. The API here is a communication's medium to fit that modularity.
Thanks for the quick feedback. Sorry to be so thick on this, but I'm still not seeing it. When I write code that throws an exception, I don't think: "is this continuable or not," I think "this has to fail, let someone else deal with it." I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't see why an exception isn't always continuable depending on how clever the handler wants to be. Perhaps you can provide an example of a continuable and non-continuable circumstances? That would probably clear things up. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Simon My blog: http://benjisimon.blogspot.com tenspotting.com - Top 10 Lists++
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
