On Wed 18 May 2011 16:39, Alaric Snell-Pym <[email protected]> writes:
> In which case, the re-raise if no clause matches would rely on having > preserved the original dynamic state by keeping a copy of the > continuation of RAISE around. Or, rather, a continuation captured just > within RAISE before the handler is invoked that, if it actually > continues, causes the re-raise - having re-wound the dynamic state... That is crazy :) We're not talking just about parameters; there are dynamic-wind guards, etc to think about, and rewinding those does not sound like something that you want to do as part of your error-handling mechanism. Could this not be a bug in the SRFI-34 spec? http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-34/mail-archive/msg00013.html Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
