Hello, On Wed 22 Aug 2012 01:54, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> writes:
> You acknowledged that whether we put it in the > small language or not, people will have raise-continuable. > This is incompatible with your definition of c-w-i-f. No, this is not. If a user implements raise-continuable, it does not use the exception mechanism. > No one is talking about non-local exits that do not use > the exception mechanism. Why did you mention amb, then? >>> `exception-protect' is useful but is only an 80% solution. >>> It is therefore not appropriate for call-with-input/output-file. >> >> This is ridiculous. The same argument would support not closing the >> file after a normal exit from the c-w-i-f procedure. > > No it would not, because that's the existing c-w-i-f semantics > (that the port is closed after the first normal return). > > You are proposing a change to the semantics which could > break existing R6RS programs, and existing R5RS programs > that use an exception system. Since when do you care about R6RS? It doesn't matter though, the answer here is still no: R6RS programs use different libraries. c-w-i-f in R6RS does not have the be the same one as in R7RS. As R5RS has nothing to say about exception systems, it cannot possibly break these. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
