This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Shiro Kawai wrote: > There's another point, though. There are two camps in Scheme > implementations regarding how to give the "fallback" value, both have > their own ground. If srfi-44 gives a convincing rationale for thunk > approach, and becomes widely spread, it may be possible that > eventually the convention of giving fallback value converges to thunk > approach. I've been thinking about this, and I'd rather raise an exception than provide a failure thunk. SRFI-34 defines exceptions, and SRFI-35 style conditions could provide information about the failure. It seems to me that a language with sophisticated support for continuations should take advantage of that in failure interfaces. It also simplifies call interfaces, since you don't ever need to distinguish, "Is this procedure a thunk or a collection datum?" Unfortunately, SRFI-34 isn't quite implementable on some Schemes. For example, PLT provides a RAISE primitive which is *almost* compatible with SRFI-34, which means that it's tough to replace -- you can't implement SRFI-44 with PLT RAISE, and existing code relies on the PLT version, causing interoperability problems. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd