carlton@husc10.harvard.edu (david carlton) (02/16/91)
Why does the scheme standard require that open-{input,output}-file signal an error if the file can't be opened? As far as i can tell, it makes it impossible to write (portable) programs which can deal with the non-existence of files. wouldn't returning #f, say, make a lot more sense? david carlton carlton@husc9.harvard.edu
mkatz@garlic.stanford.EDU (Morris Katz) (02/20/91)
Date: 15 Feb 91 17:27:08 GMT From: david carlton <carlton@husc10.harvard.edu> Organization: Citizens for Boysenberry Jam Why does the scheme standard require that open-{input,output}-file signal an error if the file can't be opened? As far as i can tell, it makes it impossible to write (portable) programs which can deal with the non-existence of files. wouldn't returning #f, say, make a lot more sense? Your suggestion was discussed at the last Scheme Meeting and was rejected for reasons which I cannot remember at this time. As I remember, one of the overriding considerations was that someone presented a portable alternative. Could someone refresh my memory as to the details of this discussion. -------------------- Morry Katz katz@cs.stanford.edu --------------------