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 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