From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kevin Ryde Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:29:49 +1100 Message-ID: <871wyu8t5e.fsf@zip.com.au> References: <200511301616.22258.bkorb@gnu.org> <87wthpkyan.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <43B69F41.6030509@xs4all.nl> <87hd8pb8o7.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87lkxy3abo.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <877j9i31gc.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87acebhf1o.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138318231 30295 80.91.229.2 (26 Jan 2006 23:30:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 27 00:30:30 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2GZI-0006UR-AI for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:30:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2Gc6-00048B-MX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:33:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F2Gbv-00042o-L3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:33:03 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F2Gbt-000426-V9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:33:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2Gbt-00041u-IU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:33:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [61.8.0.115] (helo=mailout2.pacific.net.au) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F2GZX-0002DA-1M for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:30:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k0QNU4hq014609 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:30:04 +1100 Original-Received: from localhost (ppp2290.dyn.pacific.net.au [61.8.34.144]) by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k0QNU32c004420 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:30:03 +1100 Original-Received: from gg by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1F2GYn-0000kh-00; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:29:49 +1100 Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never In-Reply-To: <87acebhf1o.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:13:55 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:5630 Archived-At: Neil Jerram writes: > > The difference is that the enclosing call approach allows > code inbetween the lazy-catch and the error point to decide on a > different, more local strategy for handling the error, whereas the > hook approach doesn't. I think it's clear that the enclosing call > approach is better, Yes. Making a local decision is what I always seem to use lazy-catch for, in my case trapping selected system call errors but not interfering with the backtrace of others. > the lazy-catch doc says that its handler must not return, It'd be nice if that could be relaxed, if it was easy to do. In a couple of places I've wanted to return and continue past the lazy-catch form, having taken whatever action in the handler. (An extra wrapping full `catch' makes that possible.) _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel