Re: non-recoverable errors

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

> * Bruno Haible <oe...@py...t> [2004-06-04 15:53:25 +0200]:
>
> Sam wrote:
>> BTW, both _must_ be recoverable.
>> The only non-recoverable error should be fehler_notreached().
>
> I think you have a lot of work in front of you to reach this, and that
> you can achieve more with less effort.
>
> Namely, a developer's reaction on an error in - say -
>   (setf (char foo index) c)
> when c is not a character, is probably not so much to change the value of c
> and then to continue the program execution. But rather to change some code,
> redefining a few functions, and then REDO one of the function invocations
> on the stack. I think the REDO frame will be more often 1, 2, 3, 4 frames
> away from the top of stack, not the top of stack directly.

sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> To implement REDO or RETURN from arbitrary function invocations is
> tricky and difficult, especially if you want it to work for compiled
> functions as well.  But I think the benefit would be greater than
> making every error recoverable.

I think this is orthogonal.

yes, RETRY/RETURN are absolutely necessary too.
please implement them for 2.35.
(BTW, what's holding 2.34 except for <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=945469&group_id=1355&atid=101355>?)

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
Please wait, MS Windows are preparing the blue screen of death.