Scheme and exceptions

R7RS will have EXCEPTIONS. Does it mean Scheme is ready for enterprise now?

>people think "statically typed" and "lexically scoped" are the same thing
>/wrists

>>78
ANLY PROGRAM IGNORES ERRORS
there's no spoon

>>81
>people
The ``in Lisp'' guy is not even a person.

>>83
I'm "in Lisp guy" and don't think, that "statically typed" and "lexically scoped" are the same thing.

For me, the word "static" associates with: conservativity, spongers from academia, type theory, OOP, inconvenience, top-down nightmare, traditional pseudoscience, complicated religion, design patterns, 1984, jewish mathematics, verbose ugliness, planned overengineering.

Is this big Scheme or little Scheme? Big Scheme was already setting up to be a shitty Common Lisp-1 so who cares. If it's little Scheme though I'll just stay with R⁵RS.

>>84
So ``in Lisp'' guy and Set Theory spammer are the same fucker

>>86
So slow.

>>86
Got any argument in defence of Set Theory?

>>87
Maybe he didn't visit /prog/ for a while, dickface.

>>89
he
Nice samefagging, cuntbag.

>>90
Nice being a cock sucking fagstorm, nigger.

>>85
Little Scheme is getting modules, parameters, (restartable) exceptions and records.

I don't care what big Scheme is going to be, but I like what little Scheme is becoming, especially if they drop SRFI-9 records.

I mean, we desperately need modules, we need records, parameters are nice to have standardized, and a nice interface for exceptions is better than error and ad-hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementations of them on top of call/cc and dynamic/mutable state.

>>92
gay lisper

>>92
ad-hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow
no
The important part of exceptions (not the try/catch bullshit but being able to return from a different function than the one you're currently in) is a very very basic use of call/cc. Dead fucking simple.

they are adding exceptions because people can't grasp call/cc. It's the only explanation.

>>94
is a very very basic use of call/cc.
call/cc, in absence of mutable/dynamic state, can't express exceptions. Delimited continuations can easily express both restartable and non-restartable exceptions, even in absence of state. You don't understand exceptions, continuations and how they relate, call/cc is not synonym of ``continuations''.

The important part of exceptions are not only the non-local exits, but being able to raise a value and handle it elsewhere with a dynamically bound exception handler. R7RS will have restartable exceptions.

Even if they were a ``very very basic use of call/cc'', in many systems capturing the continuation is slow, while implementing exceptions may be done much more efficiently.

>>95
but being able to raise a value and handle it elsewhere with a dynamically bound exception handler.

I'm honestly OK with that value just being a string or some error code or something. when I write in languages without exceptions, the thing I miss is not having to "thread up" the error, not the handling code. Most of the time the error handling isn't much more than printing it somewhere. Who actually puts a large amount of code in catch blocks? I'll just write an (unless ) or something checking for error.

I never said call/cc was a synonym of continuations. I've implemented call/cc (and continuations) for DSLs in C a couple of times. I've worked extensively in Java and C++. I've used setjmp to get something like exceptions in C. I get this shit. I just don't find exceptions as they are presented in C++ and Java to be useful. I actually prefer coroutines to exceptions (as far as things you can implement with continuations goes.) Deal with it.

the point of Scheme is to be minimal, not practical. Leave things like this to implementers.

>>96
I'm honestly OK with that value just being a string or some error code or something.
R7RS doesn't define any exception hierarchy, just the API. You can raise anything, but you probably want to define some ``exception?'' datatype.

Who actually puts a large amount of code in catch blocks?
Java does an extraordinarily bad job at dealing with exceptions, forcing you to write bogus try/catch statements. C++ exceptions are just bad.
Exceptions are meant to be used in exceptional (hence the name) cases (i.e. when a TCP connection fails) and to be handled in even more exceptional cases. (i.e. retrying to connect (restartable exception))

Threading some error value by hand is also unSchemey, leave C to C programmers.
I actually prefer coroutines to exceptions
They are two orthogonal concepts.

>>97
the point of Scheme is to be minimal, not practical. Leave things like this to implementers.
R7RS is trying hard to be minimal and useful: it's 67 pages long now and it's not going to get much bigger. It's the spiritual successor of R5RS, and I was/am strongly against R6RS, except when I wasn't. (syntax-case, exceptions, better records)

<-- fucking dubz, check the fuck out of them

>>99
nice but chek mine

101 get.

>>98
They are two orthogonal concepts.
I get that, it just seems to me that if
cond : (when,if) as call/cc : (exceptions,coroutines)
I'd rather coroutines were built-in than exceptions, because I more often reinvent them poorly.