[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Arthur Smyles <atsmyles@x> wrote:
Well, it's not like the spec is written in stone (yet). I've thought of
the stub idea, but I believe that it is really ugly and unnecessary.
Since there is no change to the semantics, couldn't the WG have some
remedy (perhaps unanimous consent) to fix this issue before the standard
is fully petrified?

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.

The spec is indeed not written in stone yet, but we
need to stop at some point, and further non-trivial changes
now will be unfair to people currently reviewing the draft
under the assumption that it is almost final.  It's
likely the people who think this would be a horrible
change wouldn't speak up until after the 8th draft was
published :)


On 11/13/12 6:00 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Arthur Smyles scripsit:
>> Both read-error? and file-error? are currently part of (scheme
>> base). Since both the read procedure and file procedures are in
>> separate libraries and are optional, it does not make sense to make
>> these 2 procedures required. I propose that read-error? be part of the
>> (scheme read) library, and that file-error? be part of the (scheme
>> file) library.
> That is an *excellent* idea, and I only wish we had thought of it.
> Unfortunately, I have to say that it just comes too late in the process.
> Fortunately, implementations that don't have the read and file libraries
> can easily use these stubs:
> (define (read-error? x) #f)
> (define (file-error? x) #f)

Scheme-reports mailing list

Scheme-reports mailing list