Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> The spec for catch's pre-unwind-handler would be that it can exit
>> either normally or non-locally. If it exits normally, Guile unwinds
>> (dynamic context + stack) and then calls the normal (post-unwind)
>> handler. If it exits non-locally, that exit determines the
>> continuation.
>
> Hmm. Now my head hurts.
:-) Sorry about that!
Well anyway, I feel pretty confident about it all, and the code's now
in CVS.
> I'm not so sure what I want any more (apart from a reliable
> backtrace).
That's working now.
>> But if we want to be ultra-cautious we could keep lazy-catch as it
>> is and introduce `with-pre-unwind-handler' (or something) with the
>> proposed semantics.
>
> Better be pretty strictly compatible, it's hairy enough without
> changing between guile versions.
Yes, that's what I thought too, so I took the "ultra-cautious"
approach.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
