[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
One last diddle to my error proposal
- To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman%CMU-CS-C@SU-DSN>
- Subject: One last diddle to my error proposal
- From: David A. Moon <Moon%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 1983 19:21:00 -0000
- Cc: David A. Moon <Moon%SCRC-TENEX%mit-mc@SU-DSN>, common-lisp@su-ai
- In-reply-to: The message of 24 May 83 12:09-EDT from Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at CMU-CS-C>
Date: Tue, 24 May 1983 12:09 EDT
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C>
I don't feel passionately about this switch,
[switch of the order of the first two arguments to CERROR]
but to me it seems much more
intuitive to have the "error message" string come before the "and if you
proceed" string. They will presumably appear in the original order in
the error dialogue. I bet if we switch it, lots of users will get burned
the first few times they use it.
This could be a problem, and indeed that's the reasoning I followed
originally that caused me to put the continue-message string first. On
the other hand, since it's called "C ERROR" the "C" part should come
before the "ERROR" part. We can't win.
You don't say why you want to make the switch -- just so it looks more
like ERROR if you cover up the function name and the first arg?
Exactly. Now, the reason why that is important will not appear until Common
Lisp has conditions. I'm not going to send out a proposal for conditions
until after the first edition of the manual is out, to avoid distraction
from more important things. But I'm thinking about it a little.