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.
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:08:33 -0700 (PDT) From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Taylor Campbell wrote: > Why does it not suffice for READ to return objects that were > written and to signal, not to return, conditions for a condition > handler to receive? In the absence of any standard signalling mechanism that's ever made it into an R*RS report, this is a joke, right? No. What is a joke is that there is no standard way to signal and handle conditions. This is an *extremely* basic abstraction problem of any system of modular components, and it is not hard to build a very simple mechanism for doing this. I'm really not fond of SRFIs 34 & 35, and I hope that R6RS adopts something other than them, but, if not, they would still be better than nothing; there have also been several possible designs for condition systems discussed on the rrrs-authors list in the past, and most of them would suffice as well.