Re: Line/column numbers in user supplied exception handlers

[Dale P. Smith]

Neil Jerram wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Marius> "Dale P. Smith" <address@hidden> writes:
>     >> I also found this in the archives:
>     >> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/guile-devel/2001-May/002108.html
>     >>
>     >> It sounds like a great idea.  Has anyone thought about it?
> 
>     Marius> Yes, I like it, too.  That is, I like the general idea of
>     Marius> separating the notion of error handlers and non-local
>     Marius> exits.  Or put differently, I think the error handler
>     Marius> should be invoked in the dynamic context of the error.  If
>     Marius> it so desires, the error handler can exit non-locally (or
>     Marius> pass control on to the next error handler, but it can't
>     Marius> return normally).
> 
> I'd like to experiment with this; what I have in mind is, before
> `scm_ithrow (key, arg_list, 1);' in scm_error:
> 
>     scm_c_run_hook (scm_error_hook, scm_cons (key, arg_list));
> 
> Then, just as you say, one of the hook procedures can exit non-locally
> if it wants to; but if none of them do, the scm_ithrow will happen.

I was going to suggest this also.

What if the hook is empty?  Should there be a default procedure that
runs, or should the startup code add the default to the hook?

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
Treasurer, Cleveland Linux Users Group http://cleveland.lug.net
Senior Systems Consultant, Altus Technologies Corporation
address@hidden
440-746-9000 x309