On 2011-05-02, at 17:16, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2011 11:03:41 -0400, Vincent Manis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> my original proposal, which attempted merely to make error handling >> usable in a WG1 setting > > I agree that it would be nice to have something like this. I wonder > whether this is too much to ask for though.
I would like to know what the metric is for `this is too much to ask'. As presented in the Draft, exception handling is purely ornamental; there is essentially nothing that a compliant program can do in reporting an error except write out `SOMETHING IS WRONG' (it's agreed that a program will know that an error or exception occurred; here I am concerned about reporting). I attempted to repair this by proposing a type predicate, a constructor, and two accessors. (The constructor is actually not from this part of the proposal, but rather from the part about constraining the argument of raise and raise-continuable, which I agree is more controversial, so we can boil down the part of the proposal we're discussing here to three very short procedures.) If it IS too much to ask, could the WG please provide an explanation of why? -- vincent _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
