THROW

( k * x n -- k * x | i * x n )

If any bits of n are non-zero, pop the topmost exception frame from the exception stack, along with everything on the return stack above that frame. Then restore the input source specification in use before the corresponding CATCH and adjust the depths of all stacks defined by this standard so that they are the same as the depths saved in the exception frame (i is the same number as the i in the input arguments to the corresponding CATCH), put n on top of the data stack, and transfer control to a point just after the CATCH that pushed that exception frame.

If the top of the stack is non zero and there is no exception frame on the exception stack, the behavior is as follows:

If n is minus-one (-1), perform the function of 6.1.0670 ABORT (the version of ABORT in the Core word set), displaying no message.

If n is minus-two, perform the function of 6.1.0680 ABORT" (the version of ABORT" in the Core word set), displaying the characters ccc associated with the ABORT" that generated the THROW.

Otherwise, the system may display an implementation-dependent message giving information about the condition associated with the THROW code n. Subsequently, the system shall perform the function of 6.1.0670 ABORT (the version of ABORT in the Core word set).

See:

Rationale:

If THROW is executed with a non zero argument, the effect is as if the corresponding CATCH had returned it. In that case, the stack depth is the same as it was just before CATCH began execution. The values of the i * x stack arguments could have been modified arbitrarily during the execution of xt. In general, nothing useful may be done with those stack items, but since their number is known (because the stack depth is deterministic), the application may DROP them to return to a predictable stack state.

Typical use:

: could-fail ( -- char )
   KEY DUP [CHAR] Q = IF 1 THROW THEN ;

: do-it ( a b -- c) 2DROP could-fail ;

: try-it ( --)
   1 2 ['] do-it CATCH IF
   ( x1 x2 ) 2DROP ." There was an exception" CR
   ELSE ." The character was " EMIT CR
   THEN
;

; retry-it ( -- )
   BEGIN 1 2 ['] do-it CATCH WHILE
   ( x1 x2) 2DROP ." Exception, keep trying" CR
   REPEAT ( char )
   ." The character was " EMIT CR
;

Implementation:

This is the counter part to E.9.6.1.0875 CATCH.

: THROW ( ??? exception# -- ??? exception# )
    ?DUP IF          ( exc# )     \ 0 THROW is no-op
      HANDLER @ RP!   ( exc# )     \ restore prev return stack
      R> HANDLER !    ( exc# )     \ restore prev handler
      R> SWAP >R      ( saved-sp ) \ exc# on return stack
      SP! DROP R>     ( exc# )     \ restore stack
      \ Return to the caller of CATCH because return
      \ stack is restored to the state that existed
       \ when CATCH began execution
    THEN
;

Testing:

DECIMAL

: t1 9 ;
: c1 1 2 3 ['] t1 CATCH ;
T{ c1 -> 1 2 3 9 0 }T    \ No THROW executed

: t2 8 0 THROW ;
: c2 1 2 ['] t2 CATCH ;
T{ c2 -> 1 2 8 0 }T    \ 0 THROW does nothing

: t3 7 8 9 99 THROW ;
: c3 1 2 ['] t3 CATCH ;
T{ c3 -> 1 2 99 }T    \ Restores stack to CATCH depth

: t4 1- DUP 0> IF RECURSE ELSE 999 THROW -222 THEN ;
: c4 3 4 5 10 ['] t4 CATCH -111 ;
T{ c4 -> 3 4 5 0 999 -111 }T        \ Test return stack unwinding

: t5 2DROP 2DROP 9999 THROW ;
: c5 1 2 3 4 ['] t5 CATCH           \ Test depth restored correctly
   DEPTH >R DROP 2DROP 2DROP R> ;    \ after stack has been emptied
T{ c5 -> 5 }T

ContributeContributions

AlexDyachenkoavatar of AlexDyachenko The value of STATE should be restoredProposal2017-09-03 11:07:49

To meaningfully continue after a THROW/CATCH, the value of STATE should be captured during CATCH and restored during THROW.

LeonWagneravatar of LeonWagner 2017-09-08 09:07:15

What is your use case for this? Could you show us an example?

AntonErtlavatar of AntonErtl 2017-09-08 11:48:24

We discussed this at the standards meeting, but do not have an answer for this proposal yet. Anyway, here is my personal answer:

It is a common problem to have a global variable that you want to restore on exiting a word, whether the exit is regular, or through THROW. This problem exists not just for system variables like STATE or BASE, but also for application variables. The general approach that I recommend is to have wrappers around the code that changes the variables. The wrapper catches any exception coming through, restores the old value of the variable, and then THROWs the exception (if any) on. For STATE, this can be done as follows:

: state! ( f -- )
  if ] else postpone [ then ;
: state-wrapper ( xt -- )
  state @ >r catch r> state! throw ;

\ usage example
s" ] non-existent-word" ' evaluate ' state-wrapper catch .

AlexDyachenkoavatar of AlexDyachenko 2017-09-25 14:04:02

My main use case was trying to handle any errors that may occur when including another file, e.g.

S" somefile.4th" ' INCLUDED CATCH ...

This code could be interpreted or compiled, and of course inside somefile.4th the STATE can change arbitrarily prior to a THROW. So anything following CATCH would only work as intended if STATE had not changed. Your example is certainly one way to work around this, but it requires every use of CATCH to be wrapped. In my opinion, if CATCH does not restore STATE, it falls short of satisfying this from the THROW Rationale: "If THROW is executed with a non zero argument, the effect is as if the corresponding CATCH had returned it." The application variables are certainly the application's responsibility, but system variables should be the system's.

If an otherwise standard system chose to restore STATE and BASE as part of the CATCH semantics, would this still be a standard system?

Reply