[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Answers to common administrative questions about CL error handling
- To: CL-Error-Handling@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, X3J13@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Answers to common administrative questions about CL error handling
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 89 12:35 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
I've been getting a lot of queries about the state of the condition system
lately and I wanted to get the community brought up to date...
- Yes, version 18 of the condition system (AI.AI.MIT.EDU:COMMON;COND18 TEXT)
is still `current' in the sense that there has been no version 19.
Version 18 was approved by X3J13 and can only be modified by the cleanup
process. The only coherent conditions document which will follow will be
the full ANSI spec.
- Yes, AI.AI.MIT.EDU is hard to get to. With some help from Larry Masinter,
I have moved the two files holding the condition system to a new home
on ARISIA.XEROX.COM, where you can get them via anonymous FTP...
- Yes, there have been cleanups which have affected the correctness of
version 18. The two most relevant cleanups are CONDTION-RESTARTS and
CLOS-CONDITIONS, also available from ARISIA.XEROX.COM, in the files:
- Given that version 18 has been amended and there is no coherent document
to use, what should you take as an authority?
If you are an implementor, you should definitely look at BOTH the
version 18 proposal and all condition-related cleanups. There may
be others which have a smaller impact as well, but the two above are
the most major. Of course, how much you implement and how fast is
really up to you--there is no ANSI spec yet, so strictly speaking
there is not yet anything for you to say you conform to.
If you're a user are are just doing programming in some system
which claims to support the emerging system, my feeling is that
you should look at NEITHER. I recommend instead that you consult
vendor-supplied documentation to find out what your vendor intended
you to be using. Although not really secret, these X3J13 documents
are not public in the sense that they are not easily accessible.
Also, they are prone to change. As such, they are not something you
should rely on as authoritative. Different vendors are providing
different levels of compatibility in the interim, and are tracking
changes at different rates. Only your vendor can tell you what
you can reasonably expect out of their implementation.
I apologize for the broad distribution--I hope this information is helpful
to some of you who are scrambling to bring yourselves up to date. If you
have more questions, feel free to reply to me PRIVATELY. To avoid excess
mail traffic, do NOT direct your replies to the `X3J13' mailing list.