[racket] raise vs abort

On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Keiko Nakata <keiko at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>> raise just calls a handler that is the one that does the interesting control.
>
> So having separate implementations is for optimization?

Well I believe that abort actualy aborts so that requires some
interesting work.

Robby


> Keiko
>
>
> From: Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>
> Subject: Re: [racket] raise vs abort
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 08:18:21 -0600
>
>> raise just calls a handler that is the one that does the interesting control.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Keiko Nakata <keiko at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure where to ask this question, but
>> > why are 'raise' and 'abort' implemented separately
>> > (rather than, say, 'raise' by means of 'abort')?
>> >
>> > I haven't understood the implementations of these primitives,
>> > but they appear very different (in error.c and fun.c).
>> > Will someone explain to me why they should be, roughly?
>> >
>> > Keiko
>> > _________________________________________________
>> > B For list-related administrative tasks:
>> > B http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>> >
>>
>