Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 16:24 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> >> `condition-ref` is just like `foreign-error-ref` and the field system
> >> works just like the 198 property system. However, each SRFI 35 condition
> >> type has a particular fixed set of fields whereas much of the point of
> >> 198 is that the set of properties can evolve and be freely chosen from.
> >
> > Wouldn't extra fields correspond to SRFI 35 compound conditions? Each
> > set of extra fields corresponding to each other would become a new
> > simple condition type packaged with the rest into a compound
> > condition.
>
> Using SRFI 35 you need to define a new condition type for each
> combination of fields, right? 198 in its current form lets each object
> freely mix any fields without defining a new type.

Okay... we could define a catch-all SRFI 35 condition type, which just
carries an alist or plist. Over time, some of their fields can mature
into well-defined special condition types, like one that carries
"errno".