[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_wrong_num_args
From: |
Gary Houston |
Subject: |
Re: scm_wrong_num_args |
Date: |
29 Mar 2001 00:17:52 -0000 |
> From: Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:17:37 +0200 (MEST)
>
> One aspect is (as you have suggested) to make the error reporting
> functions create continuations to allow to continue the execution after an
> error has occured. This idea can be extended, for example to use the
> continuation to extract backtrace information (as a replacement or in
> addition to the current explicit stack creation mechanism). This would
> allow to show a mixture of C level and scheme level stack frames.
Restartable exceptions were actually rejected when the current system
was evolved, see:
http://www.red-bean.com/guile/guile/old/0455.html
Creating a continuation for every exception seems too slow to be used
in non-debugging sessions.
- scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/06
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/13
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/03/14
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/14
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/15
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/24
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/25
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dale P. Smith, 2001/03/27
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dale P. Smith, 2001/03/27
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args,
Gary Houston <=
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/28
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/24
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/25
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30