Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch

[Neil Jerram]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> The spec for catch's pre-unwind-handler would be that it can exit
>> either normally or non-locally.  If it exits normally, Guile unwinds
>> (dynamic context + stack) and then calls the normal (post-unwind)
>> handler.  If it exits non-locally, that exit determines the
>> continuation.
>
> Hmm.  Now my head hurts.

:-)  Sorry about that!

Well anyway, I feel pretty confident about it all, and the code's now
in CVS.

> I'm not so sure what I want any more (apart from a reliable
> backtrace).

That's working now.

>> But if we want to be ultra-cautious we could keep lazy-catch as it
>> is and introduce `with-pre-unwind-handler' (or something) with the
>> proposed semantics.
>
> Better be pretty strictly compatible, it's hairy enough without
> changing between guile versions.

Yes, that's what I thought too, so I took the "ultra-cautious"
approach.

Regards,
        Neil