On Nov 16, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote: > I skimmed through the thread, and it seems the discussion is > for the following case: > > (loop [...] > (try > ... > (catch ... (recur ...)))) > > I wouldn't expect this to work. However in my case the structure > was: > > (try > ... > (catch ... (loop [...] (recur ...)))) > > So the loop did not cross the catch clause. From theoretic > point of view, I don't see a reason, why this should not be > possible.
Right you are, I had missed that distinction between the two cases. Now it looks to me like your code should work and that the test for recur in catch should be refined to detect the case where recur destination is also in the catch and allow that. --Steve --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
