[r6rs-discuss] Raise-continuable and raise question

[Ben Simon]

On 7/15/07, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
>
>  *
> *
>
> <i>My question: why make it the responsibility of the raising code to  decide if an exception is continuable.  Isn't that up to the handler?</i>
>
> Both have to agree.   So, there is an offer that says "it may be
> meaningful to continue" and an acceptance that say "ok, then, continue".
>
In general, think of the raising code and handler as separately developed.
> Only the raising code knows if there is handling in place for continuing.
> Only the handler knows if the dynamic context wants to continue, if
> possible.   The API here is a communication's medium to fit that modularity.
>

Thanks for the quick feedback.  Sorry to be so thick on this, but I'm still
not seeing it.

When I write code that throws an exception, I don't think: "is this
continuable or not," I think "this has to fail, let someone else deal with
it."  I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't see why an exception
isn't always continuable depending on how clever the handler wants to be.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a continuable and non-continuable
circumstances?  That would probably clear things up.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Simon
My blog: http://benjisimon.blogspot.com
tenspotting.com - Top 10 Lists++
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070715/749a8328/attachment.htm