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.edumkatz@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
--------------------