Re: [Scheme-reports] confusing example in 6.11. Exceptions

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM, leppie <xacc.ide@x> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

That to me means the effect of the with-exception-handler
is to raise an exception handled by some top-level handler.
However, the example says the _expression_ evaluates to <unspecified>
- i.e. it should actually return.

Yes, that's what will happen - I'll fix that.

Dont miss the line on the next page.

"After printing, the second example then raises another ex-

ception."

My understanding is that it will not return.

Yes, the prose in the R7RS draft is correct.  The

only confusion was the "=> unspecified" in the example.

 

Has this changed in any way in R7RS from how R6RS and SRFI-34 works?

No, the R7RS exception system is identical to R6RS.

-- 

Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports