Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch

[Marius Vollmer]

>> Hmm, what I'm trying to say here that "lazy" is not some standard,
>> established terminology, and if we come up with something better, we
>> should feel free to change terminology.
>
> Yes, that makes good sense.  I can't think of anything better than
> "pre-unwind", so I'll use that in all new names.  I don't think it's
> worth changing any preexisting names though, such as struct lazy_catch
> - do you agree?

I agree.

> [...], so long as we don't have to worry about preserving source
> compatibility for functions that have SCM_API but are not part of
> the Guile API.  And my understanding is that "part of the Guile API"
> <=> "documented in the manual".

Yes, exactly.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405