On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Hans Hübner hans.huebner@gmail.com wrote:
I am not meaning to say that I would be strictly opposed to re-establishing a Hunchentoot-private way to control error handling. It is just that I have not felt restricted by using *break-on-signals* and that I consider code which uses errors to handle errors to be preferable in any case, Hunchentoot or not.
Let me just say that I agree. The hows and whens of /maybe/ re-establishing Hunchentoot-specific error handling are still open due to lack of time (and that's one of the main reasons holding back a new release). But generally I think that CL has maybe the best condition system of all programming languages I know and we all don't use it enough. In an ideal world, *break-on-signals* would be the right solution to this problem. (And, yes, I've also used ignore-errors in places we I shouldn't have.)
Edi.