Per Bothner wrote:

> * Why do we need a new condition type, disjoint from other Scheme values,
> with 5 new operations, some of which are quite non-trivial?  Why can't
> we just use standard lists (perhaps association lists)?  It seems rather
> non-Schemey (non-orthoginal) to me, to add a new data-stype, with new
> operations, that is *similar* to existing data types, but which is
> designed for one very specific applications (exceptions and handlers).

All of this is also true of continuations.

'shriram