Hi all,
continuing my experiments to catch exceptions in chicken, I've been
working out a more core-chicken-only example.
> > > Let's see. Is this correct as a minimal example?
> > > --- %< tg.scm
> > > (require-extension srfi-34)
> > > (print (guard (ex (else 'success)) (call-with-input-st
What version of Chicken is this on? Your code works fine on my
system (Chicken 3.3.0):
$ ./tg
condition-case-does-a-better-job-than-guard
Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Now I tried:
>
> --- %< tg.scm
> (require-extension ports)
> (print (condition-case
> (c
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 18:06 +0900 schrieb Ivan Raikov:
> What version of Chicken is this on? Your code works fine on my
> system (Chicken 3.3.0):
>
> $ ./tg
> condition-case-does-a-better-job-than-guard
chicken -version
CHICKEN
(c)2008 The Chicken Team
(c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann
Ver
I get:
csi> (print (guard (ex (else 'success)) (call-with-input-string ")" read)))
success
The official Debian package is based on development release 3.2.7,
which is identical to stable release 3.3.0.
-Ivan
Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ivan, could you try this one
i explained this already.
you want with-input-from-string.
not call-with-input-string
-elf
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi all,
continuing my experiments to catch exceptions in chicken, I've been
working out a more core-chicken-only example.
Let's see. Is this correct
#;1> (condition-case (with-input-from-string ")" read) (var () "no prob"))
"no prob"
#;2> (condition-case (call-with-input-string ")" read) (var () "no prob"))
"no prob"
#;3>
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 18:06 +0900 schrieb Ivan Raikov:
What v
ERR
Double checked: it's SRFI-34, which is in the way!
I accidentally left (require-extension srfi-34) in the code I compiled
to test condition-case. Once removed, the error get caught. So we have
the bug in srfi-34.egg - definately.
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 11:35 +0200 schrieb Jörg
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 02:56 -0700 schrieb Elf:
> i explained this already.
> you want with-input-from-string.
> not call-with-input-string
and I answered already, that *I* pretty sure call-with-input-string
should be ok too, since it's just direct passing of the port instead of
passing via
#;1> (use srfi-34)
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/srfi-34.scm ...
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case.so ...
; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ...
; loading library srfi-18 ...
#;2> (print (guard (ex (else 'success)) (with-input-from-string ")" read)))
success
#;3> (co
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 03:21 -0700 schrieb Elf:
> #;1> (use srfi-34)
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/srfi-34.scm ...
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case.so ...
> ; loading /usr/lib/chicken/3/syntax-case-chicken-macros.scm ...
> ; loading library srfi-18 ...
> #;2> (print (guard (ex (els
the reason for the incompatibilities is that chicken uses the srfi-12
exception model, not the srfi-34, as the srfi-12 model is cleaner,
more flexible, and doesnt require six other srfis in order to work.
-elf
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 03
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 04:48 -0700 schrieb Elf:
>
> the reason for the incompatibilities is that chicken uses the srfi-12
> exception model, not the srfi-34, as the srfi-12 model is cleaner,
> more flexible, and doesnt require six other srfis in order to work.
I'm not (yet) interested in a
srfi-34 is meaningless without srfi-35 and srfi-36. nothing in srfi-34
details the actual format of exceptions/conditions. all of this is
self-contained in srfi-12. the reason for srfi-12's withdrawl was not
because of any flaws inherent in srfi-12, but because william clinger, the
author,
furthermore, srfi-34 can be written entirely in terms of srfi-12, while the
reverse is not true.
-elf
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Elf wrote:
srfi-34 is meaningless without srfi-35 and srfi-36. nothing in srfi-34
details the actual format of exceptions/conditions. all of this is
self-contained i
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:17 -0700 schrieb Elf:
> srfi-34 is meaningless without srfi-35 and srfi-36. nothing in srfi-34
> details the actual format of exceptions/conditions.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I consider this separation of concern an
advantage of srfi-34 over srfi-12.
While it's
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:26 -0700 schrieb Elf:
> furthermore, srfi-34 can be written entirely in terms of srfi-12, while the
> reverse is not true.
Great!
So far I have neither an idea how that could be done nor have I shown
the mental or social capability to aquire the relevant knowledge.
BTW: I just compared with SRFI-18:
(raise obj) ;procedure
Calls the current exception handler with obj as the single
argument. obj may be any Scheme object.
Looks to me as if chicken was not compatible with srfi-18 either.
_
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 14:55 +0200 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 05:26 -0700 schrieb Elf:
> > furthermore, srfi-34 can be written entirely in terms of srfi-12, while the
> > reverse is not true.
>
> Great!
>
> So far I have neither an idea how that could be do
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW: I just compared with SRFI-18:
>
> (raise obj) ;procedure
>
>Calls the current exception handler with obj as the single
>argument. obj may be any Scheme o
Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2008, 18:19 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW: I just compared with SRFI-18:
> >
> > (raise obj) ;procedure
> >
> >Calls the current ex
20 matches
Mail list logo
