AndrevanTonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu> writes:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
>>> "Most implementations are able to recognize some violations
>>> when parsing, expanding macros, or compiling a definition
>>> or expression whose evaluation has not yet commenced
>>> in the usual sense. Implementations are allowed
>>> to use nonstandard exception handlers at those times, and
>>> are encouraged to raise &syntax exceptions for violations
>>> detected at those times, even if the definition or expression
>>> that contains the violation will never be executed."
>>
>> If it said:
>>
>> "&syntax exceptions for syntax violations"
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>> would that help?
>
> I don't think so. I think it would be redundant (because
> implementations are already required to raise syntax exceptions for
> syntax violations)
Yes, but the previous wording suggested that an exception with
condition type &syntax might be raised for *any* violation, not just
syntax violations.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 12:50:52 UTC