[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: CONDITION-RESTARTS (Version 1)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Issue: CONDITION-RESTARTS (Version 1)
- From: Richard Mlynarik <Mly@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:58 EST
- In-reply-to: <890314-082536-2261@Xerox>
- Supersedes: <19890317185733.7.MLY@ISABEL-PERON.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Issue: CONDITION-RESTARTS (Version 1)
To: Richard Mlynarik <Mly@ai.ai.mit.edu>, Daniels.PA@xerox.com
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
The proposal doesn't compensate for the mistake of having
disassociated restarts from context in the first place.
All restarts should have associated with them a real predicate
(not just a screwy wired-in (lambda (c) (eq c associated-condition)))
In general the applicability of a restart depends on the dynamic
environment in which it invoked as well as that in which it
All restarting forms should require a condition argument (-not- NIL.)
Why on earth do ABORT, USE-VALUE, etc still exist?
The business about COPY-CONDITION is completely confused.
I don't care for the syntax, though it isn't worse than
that of the rest of the condition system.