|
Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(09 Aug 2002 14:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Dave Mason
(09 Aug 2002 14:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(09 Aug 2002 23:28 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(12 Aug 2002 11:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(13 Aug 2002 00:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(13 Aug 2002 17:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (15 Aug 2002 01:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(15 Aug 2002 11:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(15 Aug 2002 15:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
sperber@xxxxxx
(29 Aug 2002 08:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(01 Sep 2002 20:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(01 Sep 2002 22:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(04 Sep 2002 03:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(04 Sep 2002 06:55 UTC)
|
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey 15 Aug 2002 01:46 UTC
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:40:54 +0100
From: Tony Garnock-Jones <xxxxxx@eservglobal.com>
But "finally" isn't dealing with cleaning up on
stack-unwinding - it's dealing with cleaning up on exception-raising
(which doesn't involve any stack-unwinding at all, unless an
individual exception-handler procedure decides to do a throw to a
different dynamic environment).
It doesn't make sense to me to have "finally" clean up when an
exception is raised and no stack unwinding occurs. Suppose we
build continuable exceptions on top of SRFI-34 and add
(finally <exp> <body>)
that evaluates <exp> whenever an exception is raised in <body>
and when <body> returns. Then if we write
(with-handler (lambda (c)
(if (continuable? c)
(continue c 10)
(raise c)))
(finally (begin (display "exiting") (newline))
(raise (make-continuable-exception))))
it will write "exiting" twice, once for the raise and once
for the normal return. When would you use such a "finally"?
-Richard