Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The difference is that the enclosing call approach allows
> code inbetween the lazy-catch and the error point to decide on a
> different, more local strategy for handling the error, whereas the
> hook approach doesn't. I think it's clear that the enclosi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> We'll have to ask people who work with proprietary compilers to
> voice out if there's something wrong anyway.
I doubt you'll ever get any feedback like that. Making something that
takes advantage of gcc but does no harm in vanilla c89 or c99 is in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> But still, shouldn't we use `load' (not `load-module', because of the
> path concern) to load modules? If so, the patch would just substitute
> `load' to `primitive-load'.
But that would still bring in a start-stack and so change backtraces,
so I'd p
