On Wed 18 May 2011 18:58, Jim Rees <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jim Rees <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would tend to agree. > > ...or not. I can't help feeling there is real value to having the > exception handler being run in the same dynamic context as when raise > was originally invoked -- for example supporting a runtime debugger.
The wind thrashing is what I was objecting to, yes. There's utility in both: catching pre-unwind for debugging, and after unwinding so that you know e.g. that the current output port has some sane value. My concern is about the rewinding behavior, more than anything. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
