Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> and that the args content >> is not explicitly documented (that is, I was not >> able to find it) even if its content is well defined >> in 'scm_error_scm()': >> >> scm_ithrow (key, >> scm_list_4 (subr, message, args, data), 1); > > Yes, here I completely agree with you. I've been wondering what to do > about this for ages. Do you think it can be solved adequately by > precise documentation, or do we need some way of describing the > expected throw args in code; perhaps even construct some kind of > object model around the args with methods for getting the useful bits > of information out? (Use of which would be optional.) Indeed, this exception model is not very convenient. In some cases, it's even hardly usable, as examplified by the `test-suite/lib.scm' hacks (use of regexps to parse exception messages and determine their meaning...). Ideally, Guile should use some SRFI-3[56]-like mechanism to represent exceptions. Unfortunately, I don't think this could be done without breaking compatibility. In any case, documenting the exceptions thrown by the built-in procedures would certainly help. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
