[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Yes, but internally, there is necessarily some form of `lazy-catch',
Not exactly, no. > i.e., there is code that executes just after the exception was raised > and just before the stack is unwound. Yes, there is such code, but this is just part of what `lazy-catch' as a whole needs to do. > So it seems that `catch' is just hiding this away. `Hiding' is a loaded word. I would agree that `catch' is encapsulating the running of this code. The whole point of my analysis is that this is a good thing. >> (BTW, in connection with `guard', which was called `try' in the >> original draft of SRFI 34, I came across this email in the discussion >> archive: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-34/mail-archive/msg00013.html. >> This email concludes: >> >> Robust and portable code should only use the "try" form. >> >> for reasons connected to how dynamic state is handled that I think are >> similar to the reasoning in my analysis. >> >> If accepted, this conclusion leaves SRFI-34 incomplete, because >> try/guard provides no way of running something in the context of the >> original error.) > > Well, you still have `with-exception-handler', except that it must be > used carefully. When I wrote "If accepted", I meant "If you agree that `robust and portable code should only use the try form'", which implies that with-exception-handler should not be used. Thanks for your comments on this! Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
