--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
[PATCH] condition-case success continuation |
|
Date: |
Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:26:49 +0200 |
This patch adds the condition-case handler syntax
(:success BODY)
for code executed when the protected form terminates without error. BODY is
then executed with the variable bound to the result of the protected form, and
the result of BODY is then the value of the condition-case form as usual.
This plugs an annoying hole in elisp: there hasn't been any direct access to
the success continuation which forced programmers to resort to various hacks
such as tagging the returned value and then immediately testing that tag, as in
(let ((input (condition-case _
(cons 'ok (read buffer))
(end-of-file 'eof))))
(when (consp input)
(use (cdr input))))
Now we can write
(condition-case result
(read buffer)
(end-of-file 'eof)
(:success (use result)))
which is more concise, elegant and performant.
Like all condition-case handlers (but in contrast to the protected form), the
success handler is in the tail position and the limited self-tail-recursion of
cl-labels (and named-let) works there as expected.
Details of the syntax can be changed if there is a very good reason for it.
Many other languages have more or less independently added equivalent
constructs. Common Lisp's `handler-case` has a very similar feature (:no-error).
It would be nice to give `catch` the same treatment. A particularly flexible
solution would be to add `catch` handlers to `condition-case`, which would then
be able to handle everything. Unless there is a strong reason for doing it
right away, it can be seen as a later improvement.
0001-Add-condition-case-success-handler.patch
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#47677: [PATCH] condition-case success continuation |
|
Date: |
Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:31:31 +0200 |
26 apr. 2021 kl. 17.12 skrev Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm>:
> Please, let's not add such features to the basic Emacs Lisp constructs.
> It's great to see Emacs Lisp being simple.
I'd like to clear up some misconceptions here. (Filipp, this does not mean that
I think that you wrote something stupid -- quite the contrary.)
First, is Emacs Lisp really simple? Yes and no. It's not easy to tell where its
boundaries are, especially since it doesn't have a proper module or namespace
system or a well-defined 'core language'. Basic semantics -- control
structures, built-in types, primitives and so on -- are not too messy but
definitely more than they need to be; Scheme it is not. No wonder given its
age; it has held up remarkably well considering, but it would be even more
remarkable if modern eyes could not find flaws in it.
Second, is simplicity paramount among concerns? Clearly not: compatibility
matters, and so does programming usability. It is also not clear whether a
change makes a language more or less simple; adding bignums, for example,
probably made the language less complex for the user. Even if (hypothetically)
people got by without `unwind-protect` by catching and re-raising errors, few
would object to adding that construct as a special form because it made the
language less simple.
Of course you were talking about changes that make the language more difficult
to use, but my point is that it is far from clear what kind of change actually
does that.
Unrelated to your comment: since several people have misunderstood the
proposal, I'm closing the bug to avoid conflating issues (I should have
listened to Stefan Kangas); a new one can be reopened for the patch at hand
when and if I get more free time.
--- End Message ---