| Type | Bug | Status | built | Date | 23-Mar-2010 10:09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version | alpha 97 | Category | Error Handling | Submitted by | meijeru |
| Platform | All | Severity | crash | Priority | high |
| Summary | WORDS-OF TRY [BREAK] crashes |
|---|---|
| Description | This is one of the cases where TRY yields a "special" error value (code < 100). WORDS-OF TRY [1 / 0] works normally. |
| Example code |
| Assigned to | n/a | Fixed in | alpha 98 | Last Update | 21-Feb-2014 09:54 |
|---|
| Comments | |
|---|---|
|
(0002111)
BrianH 23-Mar-2010 17:39 |
This is a side effect of bug #1509. The unwind values don't have words, so WORDS-OF shouldn't work on them. However, the unwind values should never be passed as an argument to the function in the first place; they should propagate instead. So there is no problem with the behavior of the function itself: The error is in the call to the function, as done by DO. |
|
(0002113)
Ladislav 24-Mar-2010 19:42 |
"However, the unwind values should never be passed as an argument to the function in the first place;" - certainly, triggered unwinds shall not be in the "Rebol value space", not being "normally manipulable" by any Rebol function, and existing only as "ghosts". If wished, untriggered unwinds can be defined as "regular Rebol values", but it probably isn't necessary. |
|
(0002116)
BrianH 25-Mar-2010 00:32 |
There is no such thing as an untriggered unwind value as far as REBOL code is concerned. You can't make an unwind value without triggering it. And any code which is able to treat an unwind value as if it were an untriggered error! value is a major security hole, which should be reported here. See #1004, #1509, #1515 and #1519 for other examples of that security hole. |
|
(0002283)
Carl 30-Apr-2010 21:13 |
In A98 it no longer crashes, but returns a new error indicating that such usage is not valid. |
|
(0003417)
Ladislav 30-Jan-2013 09:50 |
While not causing a crash now, the behaviour is still incorrect. See #1509 |
|
(0004247)
BrianH 19-Feb-2014 20:12 |
#1509 is now fixed, so we can consider this one fixed as well. |
| Date | User | Field | Action | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21-Feb-2014 09:54 | Ladislav | Status | Modified | tested => built |
| 19-Feb-2014 20:12 | BrianH | Comment : 0004247 | Added | - |
| 30-Jan-2013 09:50 | Ladislav | Comment : 0003417 | Added | - |
| 6-May-2010 09:29 | BrianH | Status | Modified | built => tested |
| 30-Apr-2010 21:13 | carl | Comment : 0002283 | Added | - |
| 30-Apr-2010 21:12 | carl | Status | Modified | reviewed => built |
| 30-Apr-2010 21:12 | carl | Fixedin | Modified | => alpha 98 |
| 25-Mar-2010 00:32 | BrianH | Comment : 0002116 | Added | - |
| 24-Mar-2010 19:58 | Ladislav | Comment : 0002113 | Modified | - |
| 24-Mar-2010 19:57 | Ladislav | Comment : 0002113 | Modified | - |
| 24-Mar-2010 19:54 | Ladislav | Comment : 0002113 | Modified | - |
| 24-Mar-2010 19:53 | Ladislav | Comment : 0002113 | Modified | - |
| 24-Mar-2010 19:42 | Ladislav | Comment : 0002113 | Added | - |
| 23-Mar-2010 17:39 | BrianH | Priority | Modified | normal => high |
| 23-Mar-2010 17:39 | BrianH | Status | Modified | submitted => reviewed |
| 23-Mar-2010 17:39 | BrianH | Comment : 0002111 | Added | - |
| 23-Mar-2010 10:09 | meijeru | Ticket | Added | - |