Re: [Scheme-reports] Exception handling

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

On Sun, 01 May 2011 08:39:02 -0400, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:

> Seriously, that does sound like an "unnecessary restriction" to me.

I believe this (raising arbitrary objects) was discussed to some degree on  
the list prior to voting.

 From my recollection, there is simply no good way to restrict the objects  
that RAISE might take without also enforcing a data type for conditions,  
in which case we fall within the territory that has already proven  
troublesome in R6RS. While we all want a condition taxonomy, and R6RS' is  
as good as another, there were too many to consider.

Even if we had a taxonomy, of course, the general consensus was that RAISE  
could be used for many more things than conditions or errors, and as such,  
restricting the sorts of objects that it could take would be an  
unnecessary burden on those who wished to use it for those other purposes.

	Aaron W. Hsu

-- 
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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