> 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?"

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:22:31PM -0800, bear wrote:
> 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.

Yes, there is that. I'm not 100% certain that exceptions are the better
way, just leaning in that direction.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd