This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
| From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> | Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:22:45 -0700 | | Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: | | > I think that an implementation should be allowed to signal an | > error under some conditions where an error object is encountered. | > Mandating readable written representations for error objects | > prevents an implementation from signaling such errors. | | I think this might be confused. Surely the mandating of a | representation would mean "if you print something (rather than | signalling an error) you should print it such-and-such a way." That still prevents an implementation from displaying information about what type of NaN was returned. Such information could be helpful to find the call which generated the NaN. R*RS have so far constrained only output which was readable. That policy allows an implementation to present debugging info in results without making every object first class.