Re: Returning to top-level on error
- From: Christophe Rhodes <csr21@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:45:33 +0000
"Steven M. Haflich" <smh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think Pascal's answer is correct and quite sufficient in normal
> circumstances and in the way the condition system is normally used,
> but it isn't bulletproof in the face of strangely written
> application code.
Isn't the way to disable the debugger, well, to disable the debugger,
rather than to try to handle conditions of various types?
(defun probably-disable-debugger (c f)
(declare (ignore f))
(abort c))
(setf *debugger-hook* #'probably-disable-debugger)
Christophe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Returning to top-level on error
- From: Thomas F. Bur***
- Re: Returning to top-level on error
- References:
- Returning to top-level on error
- From: Nicholas Sandow
- Re: Returning to top-level on error
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Returning to top-level on error
- From: Steven M. Haflich
- Returning to top-level on error
- Prev by Date: Re: Returning to top-level on error
- Next by Date: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
- Previous by thread: Re: Returning to top-level on error
- Next by thread: Re: Returning to top-level on error
- Index(es):