This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes: Tom> To test my understanding, and before replying to the proposal further, Tom> let me just say back to you two things that I think you would agree Tom> with (and think are obviously true): Tom> 1) Non-local exits to upward continuations currently afford no Tom> general mechanism for cleanups in FFI-using C. Yes. Tom> Later SRFIs will have to add Tom> additional mechanisms to the FFI to handle such situations. Yes, provided that they are necessary. I'm not convinced they are, but that's irrelevant here. Tom> 2) The specification of error signalling could be made clearer: That's probably true. Tom> but is could say something more like: Tom> The following macros explicitly signal certain errors. Tom> If an error is signalled, either: [...] That's arguable, but not what I intended. What I intended was that the "an error is signalled" means the same thing as in R5RS, whatever that is for a given Scheme implementation. In particular, what you propose ... Tom> 1) the computation must be terminated Tom> 2) the computation may be continued in part by invoking Tom> a continuation which is upwards relative to the Tom> C call that triggered the error. (see "Calling Scheme Tom> procedures from C".) ... seems to leave as much room for interpretation as what's in there now. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla