On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:13:49 +0100 Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > Also: should these structured error objects be named > exceptions or conditions? SRFI-35, R6RS, and R7RS say "conditions", but > racket and my heart say "exceptions"; wdyt?
R6RS and R7RS speak of raising an exception, and handling the exception in an exception handler, and racket uses similar language. According to R6RS "when an exception is raised, an object is provided that describes the nature of the exceptional situation. The report uses the condition system described in library section 7.2 to describe exceptional situations, classifying them by condition types". However, condition objects are optional when an exception is raised - you can just as well use a symbol, or a symbol/string pair, for simple cases. "Condition" is a strange word for describing structured error objects, I agree. However, I think it would be quite confusing to describe error objects as exceptions. "Error object" or "error condition object" seems a reasonable alternative if the bare word "condition" is thought to be inappropriate.