If library writers create alternative api for files and the reader, they should provide their own error facilities. These 2 procedures are for the standardized (scheme file) and (scheme read) libraries. I believe that the WG should reconsider having these procedures in (scheme base) for facilities that have been manifestly declared optional. It seems self-evident that the location of these procedures is contrary to the intent of the design of the R7 report.
Arthur On 11/13/12 10:29 PM, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since all other exception handling and introspection is >> in base, and you want to be able to detect these even >> if not using file/read yourself, I'm not sure this move >> would even be desirable. We would need to vote on it. > In particular, I imagine that library writers would want to be able > to handle these sorts of errors even if they are writing the library > on Schemes that do not provide standard read libraries or the like. > The counter argument to this is that the COND-EXPAND facility would > make it easy to write versions for either case, regardless as to > whether these predicates were required and in the base. > > Nonetheless, I agree with Alex that this is not as clear cut as > I think many of us would want, and as such, I think we can't change > the draft with this sort of thing at this point. On the other hand, > it may be worth discussing this some more and spending some time > working out the kinks on the idea to make an erratum to the draft or > something to that effect. > _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
