[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>, David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Proposal #1
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 12:19 EDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12222502920.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1986 23:33 EDT
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
I don't think that your severity proposal can possibly fly.
One of us is confused. I see Proposal#1 being to expand 2 classes of
errors to 3. I see my extension doing the same thing but expanding to 5
classes instead of 3. We should probably just drop it.
decision about whether to signal an error is a function of two things:
the severity of the effects of the error and the cost of detecting it.
The cost of detecting various kinds of errors varies tremendously from
one implementation to another (and the danger posed by non-detection can
vary as well) so we can't really create a scalar ranking of errors and
standardize it across all implementations. This is a multi-dimensional
I thought we had discussed your second point at some length, when Sandra
Loosemore expressed dismay at having to provide two versions of all
built-in functions, but I'll try again using your AREF example.
OK. Sorry if this was already explained as explicitly as you did in
some previous mail.
- Proposal #1
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>