Re: [Chicken-users] Expecption Handling with chicken

[Michael Erdmann]

Thomas Chust wrote:
> Michael Erdmann wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > The interface i a little bit funy but look very mutch
> > like the try...catch construct of java.
> >
> > ;; creating an intecepting an exception
> > (call-with-current-continuation
> >    (lambda (exit)
> >       (handle-exceptions exn
> >          (begin (put-line "Went wrong") (exit exn) )
> >          (put-line "Expression 1")
> >          (abort 'x)))
> > )
> >
> > Java:
> >
> > try {
> >    Expression1
> >    throw ..
> > }
> > catch(Exception e) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > I can even use vectors or records to build exception types. Fine! Only
> > this  call-with-current-continuation is clumsy.
> > [...]
>
>
> If it's only the clumsy function name you dislike, you can write call/cc 
> instead of call-with-current-continuation -- that's not R5RS but a very 
> common abbreviation supported by many Scheme implementations.
>
> But the call-with-current-continuation in your example above is 
> completely superfluous. You could write
>        (handle-exceptions exn
>           (begin
>             (put-line "Went wrong") exn)
>           (put-line "Expression 1")
>           (abort 'x))
> instead and get exactly the same behaviour. (Nevertheless 
> call-with-current-continuation is used internally by handle-exceptions 
> to do what it does...)
Thanks, when reading the srfi i got the impression i have to do this. If
it not required even better.

Is there any way that i can initiate a backtrace at my will?



>

> cu,
> Thomas