[plt-scheme] Catch all exceptions

From: Dmitriy.Zavin at infineon.com (Dmitriy.Zavin at infineon.com)
Date: Mon Aug 30 15:19:22 EDT 2004

Well, I guess I have to see what exceptions my extension can throw, and only grab those. It's for my little RPC, where the server talks to the hardware through my driver (which can throw exceptions). The exceptions are caught, and print-convert'd across a socket and have it raised on the other side. It works right now for all exceptions, but now that you mention it I'll have to isolate the ones that can occur in the driver, and let local exceptions be handled by the server.

So would my test look like this?

(define (my-exn? exn)
	(cond ((eq? exn 'exn:user) #t)
		 ((eq? exn 'exn:io) #t)
		 (else #f)))

 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: plt-scheme-admin at list.cs.brown.edu 
 >[mailto:plt-scheme-admin at list.cs.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
 >Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:07 PM
 >To: Jens Axel Søgaard
 >Cc: plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu
 >Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Catch all exceptions
 >  For list-related administrative tasks:
 >  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
 >On Aug 30, 2004, at 1:01 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
 >>  For list-related administrative tasks:
 >>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
 >> Eli Barzilay wrote:
 >>> A common idiom is to use `void' instead -- it is a function that
 >>> always returns the void value, which is not #f so it is true.
 >> Or not-break-exn? .
 >not-break-exn? is probably better, since you typically don't want to 
 >catch break exceptions (or, you want to only catch break exceptions). 
 >In upcoming releases, you'd probably want to use exn:fail?

Posted on the users mailing list.