Helmut Eller scripsit: > R5RS does not have exceptions and in particular did not have an error > procedure.
Correct, but it does (as do R2RS, R3RS, and R4RS) use the phrase "is an error". > A quick search reveals that R6RS does not use the phrase "it is an > error" once. That is because R6RS converted all such situations to a requirement to raise a particular condition object at run time, with the exception of syntax errors, which may be raised before run time. There is anecdotal evidence that this was a major barrier that prevented certain implementations from adopting R6RS. R7RS-small, qua successor of R5RS, returns to the R5RS position. > Is that your way to shut down criticism? Good. It worked. I regret this interchange, and hope it will not prevent you from providing further editorial comments. WG members are a bit crabby after three long years and seven drafts. -- Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers John Cowan Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is [email protected] Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
