Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: open-input-file [topics from hell, part 2]
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.045309.20756@Think.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 91 04:53:09 GMT
References: <9104270655.aa29839@mc.lcs.mit.edu> <harlan.672776128@copper> <MARKF.91Apr29120734@montreux.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 17

In article <MARKF.91Apr29120734@montreux.ai.mit.edu> markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes:
>In article <harlan.672776128@copper> harlan@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Pete Harlan) writes:
>   Returning an error is conceptually simpler, I think.  
>
>I don't agree.

I agree with Mark (but then I'm a known CL bigot).  Here's a very good
reason why returning errors is a bad rule: what does

	(make-error 'invalid-options <options>)

return to indicate that the options were invalid?
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar