Re: Error objects in general

[Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

   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.