[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Errors in interactive commands
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
Re: Errors in interactive commands |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:01:17 +0200 |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 16:41, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Examples such like this one is why I propose using something like
>>> (throw 'command-level) instead of raising an error.
>> How would that change anything, apart from breaking code that tries to
>> catch the error? Raising an error throws to top-level by default
>> anyway.
>
> Exactly. I think signalling errors is not a bad approach, tho it should
> be improved to use `user-error' rather than just `error' for cases which
> are normally associated with user errors (which are usually listed in
> debug-ignored-errors). This way we won't need as many regexps in
> debug-ignored-errors.
My bad, I misremembered. Yes, changing the errors in commands called
interactively to user-error is what we discussed.
Is user-error implemented now?
Should user-error be raised even when the commands are not called
interactively? (Otherwise a macro handling this could perhaps be
good.)
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, (continued)
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Andreas Röhler, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Lennart Borgman, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Andreas Schwab, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands, Stefan Monnier, 2011/08/03
- Re: Errors in interactive commands,
Lennart Borgman <=