[armedbear-devel] Serious bug involving UWP

Erik Huelsmann ehuels at gmail.com
Sun Oct 18 17:57:39 UTC 2009

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/18 Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com>:
>> The ConditionThrowable should probably be named TransferOfControl
>> instead, is what I'm now thinking. That would add to the
>> "self-explanatory" level in the sources, I'd say.
> For the superclass of GO/RETURN/etc. yes, but I don't think we should get rid
> of ConditionThrowable. ConditionThrowable is actually not a good superclass for
> GO/RETURN/etc., because I'd expect Java code to try and catch conditions, but
> such catches should IMO not be mixed with catching GO/etc. To me it looks like
> we need two superclasses, ConditionThrowable for conditions, TransferOfControl
> for others.

This is exactly where ConditionThrowable is confusing. It's also where
I thought your thoughts may take the wrong turn: Java code can't
actually catch Lisp conditions: Condition (and all its decendants,
apart from user defined ones) descend from StandardObject, which
descends from LispObject. They are not Throwable at all!

So, since there are no lisp conditions going to be caught in the catch
statements, can we agree that ConditionThrowable is just a confusing



More information about the armedbear-devel mailing list