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> wrote: > 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 > one). > > 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 > performance. > > > > 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:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >
