[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: r6rs incompatibilities
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: r6rs incompatibilities |
Date: |
Fri, 21 May 2010 19:15:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
On Fri 21 May 2010 14:47, Julian Graham <address@hidden> writes:
>> * The R6RS specifies many situations in which a conforming
>> implementation must signal a specific error. Guile doesn't really
>> care about that too much -- if a correct R6RS program would not hit
>> that error, we don't bother checking for it.
>
> In a lot of these cases, that's because our libraries simply re-export
> bindings from Guile's core library or an SRFI. Instead of changing
> the error-signaling of the original procedures, we could wrap them a
> bit more in the relevant libraries to add argument validation, say, or
> to re-throw Guile's core errors as R6RS exceptions.
Sure; we'll probably take them case-by-case, accomodating where it makes
sense and documenting the incompatibility where it doesn't. It's not
like Guile's exception protocol is particularly well-thought-out :P
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
- r6rs incompatibilities, Andy Wingo, 2010/05/21
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Julian Graham, 2010/05/21
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities,
Andy Wingo <=
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Julian Graham, 2010/05/23
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Mike Gran, 2010/05/23
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Julian Graham, 2010/05/23
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Andy Wingo, 2010/05/23
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Andy Wingo, 2010/05/23
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Julian Graham, 2010/05/26
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Andy Wingo, 2010/05/26
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Ludovic Courtès, 2010/05/26
- Re: r6rs incompatibilities, Andy Wingo, 2010/05/27