Erik Naggum <email@example.com> wrote:
| * Per Bothner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| > R5RS has 'dynamic-wind' which is a generalizationm of unwind-protect.
| Kent Pitman has shown that the two mechanisms are orhogonal. I do not
| buy the line that dynamic-wind can implement unwind-protect properly.
| Could you show us how it can?
Indeed, the last time this came up (back in May?), I believe I showed
in <URL:news:email@example.com> that R5RS "dynamic-wind"
specifically *lacks* the ability to emulate UNWIND-PROTECT, since in CL
the cleanup form is allowed to THROW (provided it's to a context further
up the stack than the target of the current non-local exit, see CLHS 5.2
and 5.3->THROW), whereas in R5RS the "after" form is not:
6.4 Control features
(dynamic-wind before thunk after)
The effect of using a captured continuation to enter or exit the
dynamic extent of a call to "before" or "after" is undefined.
But even more important was the observation that:
...there is no guarantee anywhere in R5RS that "signalling an error"
interacts in any way with dynamic-wind!! At most an implementation
is required to "detect and report" certain errors, but it's not
required to do this by calling a continuation captured with call/cc
in the top-level REPL (albeit that's one "obvious" implementation),
and thus it's not required to execute any "after" thunks in any
This means that R5RS call/cc + dynamic-wind are inadequate to
implement a portable exception-handling system.
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
SGI Network Engineering <http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
[Note: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org aren't for humans ]