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.
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >> 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?" On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:22:31PM -0800, bear wrote: > Far better, IMO, to provide a way to pass in a thunk to call. If an > exception is desired, a thunk can raise it. There is no > incompatibility issue as there is with exceptions -- a thunk is a > thunk in every scheme system. Yes, there is that. I'm not 100% certain that exceptions are the better way, just leaning in that direction. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd