§4 meets §3, and the answer a reader will assume is the other one. An
inner (use-value [s string] ...) shadows an outer (use-value [v i32] ...),
so an i32 is refused there and the outer clause that would have taken it
is never consulted. Searching outward for a frame whose signature fits
would make which restart runs depend on the arguments, which is overload
resolution on a dynamic stack.
Also: neither of the new guards is a bounds check, so --no-bounds-checks
does not remove them. A wrong index is a wrong answer; a transfer into a
clause whose parameters were written to a different layout is not.
The language half of §3's parameters is in; the half that makes it worth
having is not. A break loop chooses by position and has nothing to fill a
clause's parameters in with, and that is now the top item in NEXT.md,
spelled out end to end — the accessors the frame can already answer, the
signature on the wire, and the one store that has to happen before the
channel is aimed.
§3 asks for a clause's report string to be settled before parameters and
it was not. The field is cheap and so is the accessor; the only thing
that would read either is the break loop's listing, which lives in the
agent and the daemon, so it would have shipped as a field nothing read.
It belongs with the editor half, which is changing that listing anyway.
spec-conditions.md §4 gains the rule the shadowing bug was hiding: a handler
matches by name, a debugger identifies by position, and the two are not the
same question. With it, the snapshot — a position means nothing against a
stack that moves — and the fact that a visible restart may still be
unreachable, which §6's explicit lowering makes possible.
§3 records the open one: a clause should carry a report string.
is what invoke-restart needs and not what a person reading a list needs. It
wants settling before restarts with parameters, which is where a bare name is
least sufficient.
conditions.org had the break loop under "Not yet", which it has not been for
some time, and now says why find-restart and compute-restarts still are: they
are blocked on a Restart type and a list to return one in, not on effort.
The cheatsheet was a document. It should fit on a screen: the syntax, what is
missing, the traps that are not in any error message, and the three ways it
stops. What was cut is either in spec-conditions.md or in the compiler's own
refusal, and both say it better.
conditions.org is how to drive what is built, as against spec-conditions.md
which is what it should mean and NEXT.md which is why it is shaped that way.
Every refusal message in it is verbatim rather than paraphrased, because the
reason is the thing worth knowing and a remembered approximation of it is how a
cheatsheet starts lying.
conditions-play.flan is the program to poke at. It loops rather than exiting so
flan dev can attach to it, and it is deliberately two frames deep with a defer
in the middle, so that redefining probe or fetch from Emacs and watching the
next pass through run-once shows the transfer crossing something.
It also carries the two gotchas that are not in any spec or message: a handler
closes over nothing, and invoking a restart re-runs whatever sits between it
and the target - which is what "restarts go at the resync point" is actually
about.
