On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> I've been thinking about this, and I'd rather raise an exception than
> provide a failure thunk. SRFI-34 defines exceptions, and SRFI-35 style
> conditions could provide information about the failure. It seems to me
> that a language with sophisticated support for continuations should take
> advantage of that in failure interfaces. It also simplifies call
> interfaces, since you don't ever need to distinguish, "Is this procedure
> a thunk or a collection datum?"

Far better, IMO, to provide a way to pass in a thunk to call.  If
an exception is desired, a thunk can raise it. There is no
incompatibility issue as there is with exceptions -- a thunk is a
thunk in every scheme system.

				Bear