Re: raise should not change continuation
sperber@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2002 15:08 UTC
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
>> The text in SRFI 18 you're referring to talks about primitives.
>> SRFI 34 doesn't say anything about how primitives raise exceptions.
>>
>> The specifications of RAISE and WITH-EXCEPTION-HANDLER in SRFI 18
>> don't say anything about the dynamic environment or the continuation
>> of the exception handler. The single example given doesn't constrain
>> this further, either.
Marc> But "raise" is a primitive so I don't see how a Scheme implementation
Marc> that conforms to SRFI 18 can also conform to SRFI 34 as currently
Marc> defined.
Obviously, we're running into subtle issues concerning the semantics
of English. Maybe some other native speakers can clarify how they
read this.
But the way I read SRFI 18, RAISE doesn't "raise an exception" itself:
it calls the exception handler. One of the problems in SRFI 18 is
that the term "exception" is poorly defined. In the sense of SRFI 34
("exception" = "exceptional situation"), the exceptional occurred
*before* the call to RAISE---the call itself is merely an indication
that it happened.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla