Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
hga@xxxxxx
(19 Sep 2019 13:27 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
Lassi Kortela
(19 Sep 2019 13:34 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
John Cowan
(19 Sep 2019 20:26 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI? Lassi Kortela (19 Sep 2019 20:54 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
John Cowan
(19 Sep 2019 21:04 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
Lassi Kortela
(19 Sep 2019 21:21 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
hga@xxxxxx
(19 Sep 2019 21:23 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
Lassi Kortela
(19 Sep 2019 21:32 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
hga@xxxxxx
(19 Sep 2019 22:12 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
Lassi Kortela
(20 Sep 2019 10:37 UTC)
|
Re: Should we create a general "systems errors" SRFI?
John Cowan
(20 Sep 2019 11:27 UTC)
|
> I agree that this is a great idea, provided someone else does it. :-) I can draft one if it doesn't matter that it may take a month. I've used the WinAPI error functions which may help a little. The pet feature I'd like to have is retrieving errno values from standard RnRS I/O procedures; I'll need some input from more experienced Schemers for how to best accomplish that. Probably the SRFI should specify an (os-error? <some-exception>) procedure to which exceptions from RnRS I/O procedures can answer #t. I think libexplain was the name of that friendly-unix-errors library you linked some time ago. It'd be nice to draft a SRFI on top of which an equivalent pure-Scheme library is easy to implement.