posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 15 Aug 2020 07:54 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 10:57 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 hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 11:50 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela 15 Aug 2020 12:09 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 15 Aug 2020 12:42 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 01:11 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2020 02:26 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 02:43 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 08:52 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:01 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai 16 Aug 2020 09:10 UTC
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt 16 Aug 2020 09:40 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 12:51 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 17:06 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx 17 Aug 2020 18:43 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai 17 Aug 2020 22:05 UTC
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC

Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC

>>>     it is a big topic itself and I'd like to discuss it separately.
>>>     Right now it's hard for me to see the rationale to require those
>>>     info *only* for srfi-170 (or, foreign errors if we include srfi-198).
>>
>>     So you're thinking of expanding the scope beyond SRFI 198?  That
>>     indeed makes a lot of sense, but it's hard to see how it would
>>     avoid an indefinite delay in finalizing SRFI 198.  As in, while
>>     perhaps not quite a "boil the oceans" goal like a universal FFI,
>>     how do you think you could keep it from becoming a very big and
>>     invasive to existing Scheme implementations effort?
>>
>> My intention is rather to split srfi-198 from generic
>> debugging/inspection interface (but not assuming the latter is
>> possible).  Specifically, scheme-procedure and args optional (at least
>> for srfi-170).
>
> Ah, yes, that goal makes complete sense.

I also agree that Shiro's advice is wise. Let's make the procedure and
argument info optional in SRFI 170 (and naturally in 198 as well).

> John, what do you think?