Hi, On 2024-03-28 05:47:25, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:09:20AM +0530, Kautuk Consul wrote: > > On 2024-03-27 08:43:25, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > If an exception happens you can (should!) throw an exception. Which > > > you can then catch at a pretty high level. > > Ah, correct. Thanks for the suggestion! I think I will now try to throw > > an exception from read-sector if all the code-paths imply that a "catch" > > is in progress. > > Don't try to detect something is trying to catch things. Just throw! > Always *something* will catch things (the outer interpreter, if nothing > else), anyway. In SLOF this is very explicit: > > : quit > BEGIN > 0 rdepth! \ clear nesting stack > [ \ switch to interpretation state > terminal \ all input and output not redirected > BEGIN > depth . [char] > emit space \ output prompt > refill WHILE > space > ['] interpret catch \ that is all the default throw/catch > \ there is! no special casing needed > dup print-status \ "ok" or "aborted" or abort" string > REPEAT > AGAIN ; > > The whole programming model is that you can blindly throw a fatal error > whenever one happens. You cannot deal with it anyway, it is fatal! > That is 98% or so of the exceptions you'll ever see. Very sometimes it > is used for non-local control flow. That has its place, but please > don't overuse that :-) Okay, in the v4 I just sent I added a catch statement in the open method of disk-label.fs to make sure that there is a catch for this throw. Can you please check that and tell me if I need to remove that CATCH statement ? My idea was that maybe I needed to add an appropriate CATCH statement for this in open. > > > Segher
