Hi Ladislav, On Sunday, September 1, 2002, 8:28:22 PM, you wrote:
LM> It looks to me, that the "first class error" and the "legal vs. illegal LM> error" distinction are two sides of the same coin. Indeed. We cannot use errors at all, only disarm them. So, probably we can state that errors can never be "legal", if we decide that we should never intentionally return an (armed) error. (It can be seen as a sort of workaround...) LM> Your IS-REALLY-ERROR? function works for simple code like above, but, AFAIK, LM> we cannot handle all possible cases, like e.g.: The problem is that if you enclose the code in a block or a paren the error is immediately fired; i.e. the only way to return an error from an expression is if the expression is being evaluated directly as an argument for a function. This makes me think that it's likely that this was added as a way to make functions like DISARM and ERROR? work, but otherwise error!s were intended as a very special class of values. I am more and more tempted to start writing a REBOL implementation, just to try out different approaches and to better understand why things have been done this way... pity I don't really have the time to do it. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: http://web.tiscali.it/rebol/index.r -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
