Re: Exception with multiple irritants

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2257 bytes --]



On 25-11-2022 01:03, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> ERROR:
>    1. &contract-violated
>    2. &message: "contract violated"
>    3. &origin: bla
>    4. &irritants: (> foo 10)
>    5. &irritants: (> 10 10)

I don't understand this -- (> 10 10) is always false, no?  I would 
interpret such an error message as 'you can't call this procedure at 
all, it requires a contradiction to hold'.  What's the purpose of (> 10 
10) here?  I guess 'foo=10'?

If you want to include the value of 'foo', this can be made more 
explicit, e.g.:

   4. &unsatisfied-constraint: (> foo 10)
   5. &argument: foo, 10  (i.e. this &argument condition has two fields)

That would avoid the vague '&irritants' -- I mean,

       A base type used for storing information about the causes of
      another condition in a compound condition.

is rather vague, it could refer to 'the condition causing this 
condition', or the values of the arguments, or some property of those 
arguments, or ...

> ~~~~
> 
> Nice! Now I have the value of `foo` in this case as well and that could 
> be 
> useful information in cases, when I get a violated contract unexpectedly.
> 
> However, having irritants twice seems a bit weird. Is this something, 
> that is safe to do? Something expected and probably unchanging in future 
> versions of GNU Guile? Or does it merely work by chance?
> 
> I could always make another exception type like 
> "exception-with-irritant-values" 
> or something and use that, instead of a second "with irritants" call.

I don't know if having multiple instances of the same condition type 
inside a single condition is supported.

However, given that &irritants is plural (instead of a singular 
&irritant), and the documentation also mentions 'causes' (plural!):

      A base type used for storing information about the causes of
      another condition in a compound condition.

... why not make the value of &irritants a list, e.g.:

 >    1. &contract-violated
 >    2. &message: "contract violated"
 >    3. &origin: bla
 >    4. &irritants: ((> foo 10) (> 10 10))

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]