On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Keiko Nakata <[email protected]> wrote: >> raise just calls a handler that is the one that does the interesting control. > > So having separate implementations is for optimization?
Well I believe that abort actualy aborts so that requires some interesting work. Robby > Keiko > > > From: Robby Findler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [racket] raise vs abort > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 08:18:21 -0600 > >> raise just calls a handler that is the one that does the interesting control. >> >> Robby >> >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Keiko Nakata <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi again, >> > >> > I'm not sure where to ask this question, but >> > why are 'raise' and 'abort' implemented separately >> > (rather than, say, 'raise' by means of 'abort')? >> > >> > I haven't understood the implementations of these primitives, >> > but they appear very different (in error.c and fun.c). >> > Will someone explain to me why they should be, roughly? >> > >> > Keiko >> > _________________________________________________ >> > B For list-related administrative tasks: >> > B http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > >> > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
