Re: [Scheme-reports] read-error? and file-error? should be part of their respective packages.

["Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>]

Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

> Since all other exception handling and introspection is
> in base, and you want to be able to detect these even
> if not using file/read yourself, I'm not sure this move
> would even be desirable.  We would need to vote on it.

In particular, I imagine that library writers would want to be able 
to handle these sorts of errors even if they are writing the library 
on Schemes that do not provide standard read libraries or the like. 
The counter argument to this is that the COND-EXPAND facility would 
make it easy to write versions for either case, regardless as to 
whether these predicates were required and in the base. 

Nonetheless, I agree with Alex that this is not as clear cut as 
I think many of us would want, and as such, I think we can't change 
the draft with this sort of thing at this point. On the other hand, 
it may be worth discussing this some more and spending some time 
working out the kinks on the idea to make an erratum to the draft or 
something to that effect. 

-- 

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports