On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 09:22, Frode V. Fjeld frode@netfonds.no wrote:
Edi Weitz edi@agharta.de writes:
*break-on-signals* doesn't force you to break on every signal.
One simple use-case I believe where the *break-on-signals* approach is inappropriate is if some response is computed by means of e.g.
(if (ignore-errors (try-or-fail ...)) "It worked!" "Something went wrong.")
We faced this problem a few times in the past and had the luxury to fix the underlying libraries. Normally, removing the use of ignore-errors is not hard to do, and quality code does not use it anyway. Face it, using (ignore-errors (parse-integer ...)) is nothing but stupid, but that was where I had to repair stuff in the past to make it debuggable.
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.