raise should not change continuation
Marc Feeley
(12 Aug 2002 12:09 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation sperber@xxxxxx (12 Aug 2002 12:45 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation
Marc Feeley
(12 Aug 2002 14:22 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation
sperber@xxxxxx
(12 Aug 2002 14:35 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation
Marc Feeley
(12 Aug 2002 14:57 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation
sperber@xxxxxx
(12 Aug 2002 15:08 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation
Richard Kelsey
(13 Aug 2002 01:17 UTC)
|
Re: raise should not change continuation sperber@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2002 12:45 UTC
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes: >> (raise obj ) >> >> Invokes the current exception handler on obj . The handler is called >> in the dynamic environment of the call to raise , except that the >> current exception handler is that in place for the call to >> with-exception-handler that installed the handler being called. The >> handler's continuation is otherwise unspecified. Marc> I'm sorry to say, but this definition is inconsistent with SRFI 18 Marc> because of this section in SRFI 18: Marc> Primitives and exceptions Marc> When one of the primitives defined in this SRFI raises an exception Marc> defined in this SRFI, the exception handler is called with the same Marc> continuation as the primitive (i.e. it is a tail call to the Marc> exception handler). This requirement avoids having to use Marc> call-with-current-continuation to get the same effect in some Marc> situations. Marc> In SRFI 18 the exception handler must be called with the same Marc> continuation as "raise" (and consequently the same dynamic Marc> environment and exception handler). Why is this inconsistent? SRFI 34 doesn't specify a behavior different from that of SRFI 18. It merely leaves part of the behavior unspecified. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla