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

Re: A few random I/O proposals

> Exception handlers still want the ability to "throw" to some
> previously saved continuation.  So you still need CALL/CC or at least
> "downward only" continuations, i.e. CATCH.

*Some* exception handlers *may* need this ability.  I didn't suggest
this removes all uses of call/cc, but somehow the previous posting
implied that the change >required< use of call/cc.


P.S. -- I've often wondered if we could use call/cc to provide a
useful and easily ported (but not "portable" in the sense that it runs
without changes) exception handling package of reasonable power
WITHOUT stating in advance the exceptions that can arise at runtime.
Something along the lines of having a standard set of exception names
that can be extended by the particular implementation, and an
implementation-independent means for mapping the standard names to
particular names for this implementation.  Just rambling ...