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

Re: exception systems

From: kelsey@research.nj.nec.com (Richard Kelsey)
Subject: Re: exception systems
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:41:47 -0400

>    References: <199604181735.NAA01192@lambda.ai.mit.edu>
>    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:47:04 -0400
>    From: Matthias Blume <blume@cs.Princeton.EDU>
>    Here is another one: Does anybody else also think the proposals we've
>    seen so far are -- excuse the word -- bloated?  I even read the
>    word(s) ``multiple inheritance'' somewhere!  Uuugh!
> Excuse me?  My first proposal contained three procedures and
> included an implementation in fourteen lines of Scheme.  Hardly
> `bloated'.  It was seen as completely inadequate.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you.  I was just describing my initial
reaction.  I also didn't recall the specifics of your first proposal,
so I probably should have restricted my criticism to this one.

I still think there is way too much in it.  Where is MI suddenly
coming from?  If I recall correctly, we don't even have SI in Scheme
-- and I'm very happy about this fact.

Then: recoveries, restarts, ... this is what I call `bloat'.  For the
cases where you think you need the fancy stuff I am sure one can
easily come up with a straighforward way of doing it using plain old

I would be perfectly happy with something as simple as