Should "racket/base" include something like "unwind-protect"?
The documentation could warn about what this restricts.
I feel bad every time I use "dynamic-wind" to approximate
"unwind-protect", pretending that I don't have first-order
continuations. But often I'm cleaning up one-shot external resources
anyway. "unwind-protect" would be more explicit about the assumptions
than "dynamic-wind" would, and incidentally would be tidier in the code.
Jay McCarthy wrote at 10/08/2010 07:40 PM:
I use dynamic-wind for this. If there is something better, I don't know what it
is. dynamic-wind is a little bit funny though because if you capture
continuations then the in/out handlers can run multiple times which might defy
your expectations. You could set up a continuation barrier on the inside to
ensure that doesn't happen though.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
