Vincent Manis scripsit: > No, I don't think so. I would like WG1 to consider (raise 4) illegal, > as well as (raise x) for any value of x not produced by some variation > of MAKE-ERROR-OBJECT. Then WG2 can decide to allow additional > kinds of objects to be raised, without breaking compatibility with > WG1. In my naïvete, I felt that making the action for (raise 4) be > implementation-dependent would do this, but I'm happy with any other > strategy that leads to the same result.
In my view that is too restrictive. Allowing any object means that WG1 users can roll their own condition types using DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE, exporting the appropriate predicate and accessors from their modules, without any bureaucratic restrictions. Alternatively, they can use association lists or the like. This would not be possible if only error objects were allowed: everything would have to be fitted into the straitjacket of message + irritants. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi John Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. [email protected] --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
