[R6RS] Draft of arithmetic SRFI
William D Clinger
Wed Aug 3 16:06:23 EDT 2005
Mike Sperber wrote:
> Assume that FX+ takes an additional argument---a binary procedure that
> gets called on overflow:
[Scheme code omitted]
> Why would this be worse than your bummed code?
It wouldn't be. When I said "error-signalling semantics", I was
talking about a semantics that signals an error in the sense of
R5RS or raises an exception in the sense of SRFI-34. Calling a
third argument would work just fine.
More information about the R6RS