posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (15 Aug 2020 07:55 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Aug 2020 11:16 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 12:09 UTC)
Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 13:10 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values John Cowan (15 Aug 2020 15:19 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 15:34 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 07:58 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 12:39 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:07 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 01:12 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 02:30 UTC)
Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 02:44 UTC)
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC)
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 13:01 UTC)
Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:47 UTC)
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 06:11 UTC)
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:10 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 08:55 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:02 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 09:11 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 09:44 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 10:20 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:18 UTC)
Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)
Re: Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:52 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:17 UTC)
Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:21 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 17:07 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 18:44 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2020 22:06 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:01 UTC

>> I can certainly wrap Gauche's low-level syscall API with guard and
>> translate <system-error> to srfi-170 error, in every srfi-170 API. The
>> overhead isn't small and I'd rather avoid it if I can.
>
> Loko Scheme's implementation of SRFI 198 uses the R6RS condition system.
> This way there is no need to use guard, because any syscall error
> anywhere in Loko already raises an R6RS condition and SRFI 198 just
> needs to recognize it. Maybe you can use a similar strategy in Gauche,
> can you teach SRFI 198 to understand <system-error>?
>
> In Loko, the foreign-error:* procedures understand R6RS conditions and
> check their argument to see which kind of condition they've been given.
> make-foreign-error translates its argument into conditions. This also
> has the benefit of letting any R6RS code handle the &who, &message and
> &irritants part of the SRFI 198 error.
>
> It works because SRFI 198 defines a constructor and accessors that hide
> the concrete type of conditions. I haven't been keeping up with the
> discussion lately, but I hope that this aspect hasn't changed.

Great! This is exactly the kind of implementation I was hoping the
abstract data type would enable. I recommend the same for Gauche as
well. I also did a Common Lisp port using the same principle.

If needed, an ADT can also have multiple implementations, e.g. one based
on a native condition type and another based on a record type. The
`foreign-status?` predicate and `foreign-status-ref` accessor will just
have to be written to recognize both. Gauche has generic functions that
can handle this if needed.