Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: open-input-file [topics from hell, part 2]
Message-ID: <5480@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 1 May 91 05:18:34 GMT
References: <9104270655.aa29839@mc.lcs.mit.edu> <9104291603.AA12211@garlic.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 14

In article <9104291603.AA12211@garlic.Stanford.EDU>, mkatz@garlic.stanford.EDU (Morris Katz) writes:
> Some of the features it includes which I consider important are
> 1)  Dynamically scoped error handlers
> 2)  The ability to specify handlers for any set of errors and allow others to
>     propagate out to dynamically enclosing scopes.
> 3)  A choice of how to resume computation following the handling of an error.
> 4)  The ability to define new error types.
> The one feature which it lacks and I would like to see is a concept os a
> hierarchy of errors.

You have just described the CL condition system.
-- 
Bad things happen periodically, and they're going to happen to somebody.
Why not you?					-- John Allen Paulos.