[Gcl-devel] Re: condition system proposal

[Peter Wood]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:57:26AM +0000, Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> Peter Wood <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > You've gotta respect how essentially robust GCL is.  Neither CLISP's
> > nor Lispworks' (trial edition) 'ignore-errors will handle the last
> > example.  CMUCL (presumably) continues 'forever'.  Only SBCL comes
> > close to doing 'the right thing', but incorrectly calls the error
> > condition a simple-error when this
> > 'SB-KERNEL:%DETECT-STACK-EXHAUSTION' surely should signal a
> > storage-condition (IMHO ;-))
> 
> You're quite right, and in versions more recent than sbcl-0.7.5 it
> does signal a storage condition (as well as being signalled by a
> different mechanism).  Your other point is right, too; a
> storage-condition is not of type error, and hence should not be caught
> by ignore-errors.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christophe
> -- 

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?

Regards,
Peter