(Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
dawnofthedata.com
(Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#2It's nice seeing Common Lisp posts on the front page.
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#3The post probably should've mentioned reader macros, since this is how you do this sort of stuff "normally".
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#4This was something I really loved during my time in Common Lisp. This was a gem that I was hoping would make it into Clojure, but I think around version 1.3 they decided to abandon the idea and add a library to "make anything throwable" which totally missed the point in my opinion.
Are there any other languages that allow the calling scope to specify how lower-level functions handle errors without unwinding the stack?
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#5This was something I really loved during my time in Common Lisp. This was a gem that I was hoping would make it into Clojure, but I think around version 1.3 they decided to abandon the idea and add a library to "make anything throwable" which totally missed the point in my opinion. Are there any other languages that allow the calling scope to specify how lower-level functions handle errors without unwinding the stack…
Not really the same thing, but Eiffel does have retries.
https://docs.eiffel.com/book/platform-specifics/exception-me...
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#6It's nice seeing Common Lisp posts on the front page.
Yes, even if the industry usage is not big, learning about other languages is always a good way to improve our skills.
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#7The post probably should've mentioned reader macros, since this is how you do this sort of stuff "normally".
I originally had a section about reader macros but I ended up cutting it since the article was running a little long.
Reader macros are great, but they work best when a token can unambiguously be recognized by the reader as using some "special syntax" (usually involves a '#' and then another dispatch character preceding the new syntax).
This is great when you're coming up with a brand-new syntax. But if you're trying to match something that already exists, it's not easy
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#8This was something I really loved during my time in Common Lisp. This was a gem that I was hoping would make it into Clojure, but I think around version 1.3 they decided to abandon the idea and add a library to "make anything throwable" which totally missed the point in my opinion. Are there any other languages that allow the calling scope to specify how lower-level functions handle errors without unwinding the stack…
Perl 6 allows for handling exception in a same-scope CATCH block, so you can try to recover. It can probably be mixed with their phasers[1] in interesting ways. Also of interest might be control exceptions[2].
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#9This was something I really loved during my time in Common Lisp. This was a gem that I was hoping would make it into Clojure, but I think around version 1.3 they decided to abandon the idea and add a library to "make anything throwable" which totally missed the point in my opinion. Are there any other languages that allow the calling scope to specify how lower-level functions handle errors without unwinding the stack…
Rust has 'Conditions', which basically allow the current function to run a closure when an error happens which tells it what to do on the error, and then continue the function call. I don't know much Rust or Common Lisp though, so I'm not sure if they're the same thing. Rust's condition functionality definitely doesn't unwind the stack when calling back though, because in Rust unwinding the stack isn't ever allowed because of memory safety issues.
Re: (Ab)Using Language Features: The Common Lisp Condition System
#10This was something I really loved during my time in Common Lisp. This was a gem that I was hoping would make it into Clojure, but I think around version 1.3 they decided to abandon the idea and add a library to "make anything throwable" which totally missed the point in my opinion. Are there any other languages that allow the calling scope to specify how lower-level functions handle errors without unwinding the stack…
Rust has 'Conditions', which basically allow the current function to run a closure when an error happens which tells it what to do on the error, and then continue the function call. I don't know much Rust or Common Lisp though, so I'm not sure if they're the same thing. Rust's condition functionality definitely doesn't unwind the stack when calling back though, because in Rust unwinding the stack isn't ever allowed b…
Rust's conditions were actually removed. [1] They don't need language support, though, so you could re-add them as a library. When they existed, they were very close to Common Lisp conditions.