On 05/18/11 15:28, Andy Wingo wrote: > Are you sure? :-) The spec notes: > > "That implicit `cond' expression is evaluated with the continuation > and dynamic extent of the `guard' expression" > > and > > "The final expression in a <cond> clause is in a tail context if the > `guard' expression itself is."
Hrm, OK, it looks like that evolved a bit from my original simplistic proposal! I'll take a look at the wording there and make sure it's as intended, when I get a moment. In which case, the re-raise if no clause matches would rely on having preserved the original dynamic state by keeping a copy of the continuation of RAISE around. Or, rather, a continuation captured just within RAISE before the handler is invoked that, if it actually continues, causes the re-raise - having re-wound the dynamic state... > Andy ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
