Scheme language standardization process
On Sun, 01 May 2011 08:39:02 -0400, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote: > Seriously, that does sound like an "unnecessary restriction" to me. I believe this (raising arbitrary objects) was discussed to some degree on the list prior to voting. From my recollection, there is simply no good way to restrict the objects that RAISE might take without also enforcing a data type for conditions, in which case we fall within the territory that has already proven troublesome in R6RS. While we all want a condition taxonomy, and R6RS' is as good as another, there were too many to consider. Even if we had a taxonomy, of course, the general consensus was that RAISE could be used for many more things than conditions or errors, and as such, restricting the sorts of objects that it could take would be an unnecessary burden on those who wished to use it for those other purposes. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports