Re: scm_wrong_num_args

[Marius Vollmer]

Gary Houston <address@hidden> writes:

> > From: Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:17:37 +0200 (MEST)
> > 
> > One aspect is (as you have suggested) to make the error reporting
> > functions create continuations to allow to continue the execution after an
> > error has occured.  This idea can be extended, for example to use the
> > continuation to extract backtrace information (as a replacement or in
> > addition to the current explicit stack creation mechanism).  This would
> > allow to show a mixture of C level and scheme level stack frames.
> 
> Restartable exceptions were actually rejected when the current system
> was evolved, see:
> 
> http://www.red-bean.com/guile/guile/old/0455.html
> 
> Creating a continuation for every exception seems too slow to be used
> in non-debugging sessions.

Yes, I wouldn't want restartable exceptions, either.  We might have
some mechanism to provide restart points, but that would require
explicit action of the code that wants to be restartable (like the CL
restarts).

The continuation would only be captured for use by the debugger, as an
internal implementation detail.