On 27 Jun 2011, at 17:47, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Doesn't anybody think that it would be a good thing to have a CDR suggesting
> an agreed upon extension of the CL standard ERROR/CONDITION hierarchy?
I think this is a good idea, and would be of great practical value.
It may a good idea to use
On 28 jun. 2011, at 13:34, Marco Antoniotti
wrote:
>
> I agree that this should be worked on cooperatively. I do not know if this
> should be a "big" proposal.
Perhaps a first step would be gathering up all the work-around / wrapper code
that people have produced to deal with these issues?
Hello Marco,
Marco Antoniotti writes:
>
> Doesn't anybody think that it would be a good thing to have a CDR
> suggesting an agreed upon extension of the CL standard
> ERROR/CONDITION hierarchy?
Definitely! While working on a portable implementation of the
functions in the sequences dictiona
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Now, this is a specific case for me: having a consistent
> READER-ERROR-BECAUSE-THERE-IS-NO-SUCH-PACKAGE-THAT-THE-SYSTEM-KNOWS
> error signaled would simplify some code writing.
>
> Doesn't anybody think that it would be a good thing to have a CDR
> suggesting an agreed u
