One yes vote from me.
(I think we already have Picolisp$Control for Exceptions, right?)
Samuel Dennis R. Borlongan
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>
> Hi Jon,
> > If you in normal PicoLisp do any of the following, without any use of
> ‘make' …
> > (chain (1 2 3))
> > (link 1 2 3)
> > (yoke 1 2 3)
> > … then you’ll get a "Not making” error message.
> > However, if you do the same with Ersatz, you’ll get a
> > java.lang.NullPointerException for ‘chain’ and ‘link’.
> You are right, this is a disputable issue.
> In fact, I deliberately omitted the runtime checks for a 'make'
> environment in ErsatzLisp, because the JVM already does such a check (a
> NullPointerException is also an error message, albeit a rather unprecise
> If you take a closer look, you see that most explicit error checks which
> exist in PicoLisp are omitted in ErsatzLisp. For simplicity, brevity and
> > For (yoke 1 2 3) you’ll get 3
> This is indeed unaesthetic, yes. At least here it is needed.
> We could easily add proper error messages to ErsatzLisp too, checking
> for non-NULL 'Env.Make' and 'Env.Yoke'.
> How is the general opinion on that?
> ♪♫ Alex
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe