Hi Gabriele,
I'm a bit late on this one, but here goes ...
Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
<...>
> Or, context should be made a little more flexible, with the
> ability to add and remove words. Words would no more be added to
> system/words; UNSET would remove a word from its context; words
> not present in any context would simply be left "unbound" (causing
> the error "Word has no value" instead of the current "Word is not
> defined in this context"); when setting an unbound word, it would
> be added to system/words. A refinement could then be added to SET
> to make it possible to add a word to a specific context, so we
> would gain the ability to easily extend objects, too.
<...>
This would really be great.
> l> *Armed errors:*
>
> [...]
>
> l> Well, that is one side of reasoning. The other one is, that
> l> our code should be able to process values. As long as errors
> l> are armed, they are only "second class" values that cannot be
> l> handled with normal code without too much complication. OTOH,
> l> disarmed Error can be handled with usual code. If we introduce
> l> "second class" values, we may introduce complications too. I
> l> am pretty sure, that even the Rebol interpreter could be
> l> simpler and faster without the "second class" values.
>
> Changing the way ERROR!s work would cause more compatibility
> issues, tough; I'd like to hear from other subscribers what they
> think about this...
I can't say much about the interpreter here, but _I_ think an
error is an error, and as such not subject to normal processing.
I want an error to bang as soon as possible, and if I think I
know how to handle a specific error, I can always use try [].
Maybe a disarmed-error! type would be useful at times, though.
Well, that's my opinion after all,
regards,
Ingo
--
do http://www.2b1.de/
_ . _
ingo@)|_ /| _| _ <We ARE all ONE www._|_o _ _ ._ _
www./_|_) |o(_|(/_ We ARE all FREE> ingo@| |(_|o(_)| (_|
._| ._|
