[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:22:29 -0600
> Yes. I bit my tongue _as_ the mail was going out. I have defined a
> condition for ansi GCL (not in CVS) called simple-storage-condition
> (should be simple-storage-error) which inherits from storage-condition
> and simple-error. This gets caught by ignore-errors. This is
> permissable, right? Advisable?
It's permissible as long as you don't make that an external
symbol of the COMMON-LISP package (that set of symbols is strictly
specified). You should make it an external symbol of some extension
package. Also, you should try to maintain consistency with other
lisp implementations, if possible.
>From the standard (the page for CONDITION):
"No additional subtype relationships among the specified subtypes
of type condition are allowed, except when explicitly mentioned
in the text; however implementations are permitted to introduce
additional types and one of these types can be a subtype of any
number of the subtypes of type condition."
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- [Gcl-devel] simple-storage-error,
Paul Dietz <=