From: Henrik Motakef
Subject: handler-case: lambda-list of :no-error clause
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:28:10 +0000
Message-ID: <87n0ikg5xh.fsf@interim.henrik-motakef.de>

Hi,

Just a quick check if I get HANDLER-CASE correctly:

The lambda that gets built for a :no-error clause is passed the return
values of the expression wrapped with HANDLER-CASE when it's
invoked. The rule that `var', i.e. the argument bound to the signaled
condition for other clauses, may be omitted if not needed, doesn't
seem to apply. So, if I don't know (or don't care) what values the
expression returns, I'd better write something like

(handler-case expression
  ...
  (:no-error (&rest junk)
    (declare (ignore junk))
    ...))

Is the &rest/declare-ignore stuff really neccessary, or would I
introduce this ugliness without a good reason?

tia
Henrik

P.S. And what the **** is up with this DECLS-AND-DOS issue?

From: Pekka P. Pirinen
Subject: Re: handler-case: lambda-list of :no-error clause
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:41:19 +0000
Message-ID: <uof1r9dxs.fsf@globalgraphics.com>

> Is the &rest/declare-ignore stuff really neccessary,

Yes, that seems to follow from the spec.

> And what the **** is up with this DECLS-AND-DOS issue?

That was no doubt the tedious detail of adding declarations and doc
strings to the syntax of all forms that would be reasonably expected
to allow them.  At the CLtL2 stage, many had been missed, incl.
HANDLER-CASE.  Not really worth rummaging in the mail archives for.
-- 
Pekka P. Pirinen
A. Top posters.
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?