Given the general lack of precision of error handling in the R7RS draft
-- something I am OK with -- the file-error? and read-error? predicates
seem out of place.
* They create an expectation of a well-specified error object
interface, where that is not really the case.
* They add verbiage to the report in unrelated sections. For example,
Section 1.3.2 ("Error situations and unspecified behavior") mentions
them specifically, while other kinds of errors are not mentioned.
My suggestion would be to remove all mention of "file-error?" and
"read-error?" from the report, and include in the larger report modules
which specify certain errors from those procedures.
As it is, I think most implementations will (define (file-error? x) #t),
which does no one any good.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
