Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS TC Magnet for Cont. Ref. Set
Message-ID: <2284.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 27 Jan 91 22:36:14 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 24

Category 10,  Topic 21
Message 62        Sun Jan 27, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 14:59 EST
 
Doug Philips comments:

> What you really want here is some kind of UNWIND-PROTECTION so that
 > if the current word is going to be blasted off the return stack
 > by a catch, you want some code to execute first.

Indeed, I ran into this problem once, and the exception handler I designed
(see SIGForth vol.1 no.2) had precisely this capability.
 (It also allowed execution to continue after corrective action was taken, but
this capability may not be as generally useful.)

Concerns like this are why I believe it's too soon to standardize
 a Forth exception handler.

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You cannot Reply to the author
using email.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp