simple resumable exceptions for clojure
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Failed to load latest commit information.


Simple resumable exceptions for clojure. Based loosely on this ML implementation. To use in a leiningen project:

[bwo/conditions "0.1.0"]

Resumable exceptions, aka conditions, allow code raising an exception to continue at the point the exception was raised, according to decisions made by condition handlers. The place best suited to be able to proceed in the face of an exception is the place where the particular exception is raised, but that is not, in general, the place best suited to deciding how to proceed: that is a decision that different calling code might want to make differently. Resumable exceptions allow higher-level functions to decide what action to take in response to exceptions, while still allowing the action to actually be taken at a lower level.

For instance, in the following example (adapted from c2), reciprocal-of throws an error if the divisor passed is zero, and provides for various responses: returning zero, returning an arbitrary value, and trying again with a new value. Similarly, determine-infinity allows handlers to instruct it to simply return -1 if it throws an error:

(require '[conditions.core :as c])
(require '[slingshot.slingshot :as slingshot])

(defn reciprocal-of [v]
  (c/rtry (if (== v 0) (slingshot/throw+ {:type :zerodivisionerror}) (/ 1 v))
          (c/resume-with [:type :return-zero] _ 0)
          (c/resume-with [:type :return-value] {v :value} v)
          (c/resume-with [:type :recalc-with] {v :value} (reciprocal-of v))))

(defn determine-infinity []
  (c/rtry (let [result (reciprocal-of 0)]
            (println "Value:" result)
        (c/resume-with [:type :continue] _ -1)))

If reciprocal-of is called within the dynamic extent of a condition handler, and throws an exception, the handler can determine what response reciprocal-of should take to the error. The error is handled where it's raised, according to a policy determined by where and how the result would have been used. For instance:

(defn try-again-with [n]
  (c/handle (determine-infinity)
            (c/catch [:type :zerodivisionerror] _ (c/resume {:type :recalc-with :value n}))))

Evaluating (try-again-with 2) results in the value 1/2. (Evaluating (try-again-with 0) is an infinite loop: the handler is still in place when reciprocal-of tries again.)


Condition handlers are set using the handle macro; conditions can be signalled explicitly using rthrow (for "resumable throw") or rtry (for "resumable try").

Handling resumable exceptions

A handler consists of several expressions (the body) followed by several catch clauses describing the conditions the handler will handle and what to do if they are signalled. The catch clauses are specified identically to slingshot's catch clauses:

  • (catch ClassName c & body) -> execute body in an implicit do with c bound to the signalled condition if it is an instance of ClassName

  • (catch [key value & kvs] destruct & body) -> execute body in an implicit do with the names in destruct extracted from the signalled condition if the condition is a map m matching (and (= value (get m key)) ...). E.g. (catch [:type :exn] {:keys [value]} (* value 2)).

  • (catch [expression referring to conditions.core/%] destruct & body) -> matches if the expression evaluates truthily when free occurrences of symbols that refer to conditions.core/% are substituted with the value of the signalled condition. (See the section on hygiene at the bottom of this readme for more.)

  • (catch seq-or-symbol destruct & body) -> matches if the seq or symbol, which is assumed to evaluate to a function, returns truthy when applied to the condition.

One of four actions may be taken in the body of a handler's catch clause:

  • If the last expression evaluated is a call to resume, evaluation will continue at the point the condition was raised with an attempt to match the argument to resume with a resume-with clause. If a matching resume-with clause is found, the result of the the rthrow or rtry expression will be the result of evaluating the body of the resume-with clause.

  • If the last expression evaluated is a call to abort, evaluation unwinds to the present call to handle (i.e. bypassing all dynamically nested calls to handle), whose result is the value passed to abort. This emulates traditional try/catch behavior.

  • If the last expression evaluated raises an exception, that exception is raised from the site of the rtry or rthrow expression. Note that it is not a resumable exception and will not be caught by other handle expressions. (But it can be caught by ordinary exception handlers.)

  • Otherwise, the last expression evaluated is the value of the rtry or rthrow expression.

Throwing and resuming resumable exceptions

rthrow takes as its first argument an exception to throw, and resume-with clauses specifying the resumptions it recognizes and the actions it will take on receiving them as its remaining arguments. resume-with clauses are identical to handle's catch clauses, except that instead of beginning with catch they begin with resume-with. If a resume-with clause matches a value that resume was called with in a handler body, the resume-with clause's body is evaluated and its result is the result of the rthrow clause. If the resumption value doesn't match any resume-with clause, it proceeds up the stack until one is found (in an rtry expression) that does.

rtry is similar to rthrow except that it takes any number of arbitrary expressions as its first arguments, and catches any exceptions they raise, handling them as if they were thrown as resumable exceptions with rthrow. This allows for recovery from code that doesn't know about resumable exceptions (note that reciprocal-of throws its exception using slingshot's throw+).

Caveat about control flow

While resumable exceptions don't lead to as many possibilities for opaque control flow as full-on continuations do, any construct in which functions that affect control flow are executed in a dynamic context separate from their textual definition has the potential to be moderately confusing. Consider, for instance, these definitions:

(defn parse-and-divide [n]
  (c/rtry (/ 10 (Integer/parseInt n))
        (c/resume-with map? {:keys [value]} value)))

(defn catcher [n]
  (try (parse-and-divide n)
       (catch ArithmeticException e

(defn handler [n]
  (c/handle (catcher n)
            (c/catch ClassCastException _ (throw (ArithmeticException.)))))

Evaluating (handler "5") results in 2, with normal control flow: the parsing and the division proceed normally and everything returns to its caller in an orderly fashion.

Evaluating (handler 2) also results in 2, but rather more circuitously:

  • (handler 2) calls (catcher 2)
  • which calls (parse-and-divide 2)
  • which calls (Integer/parseInt 2)
  • which raises a ClassCastException
  • which matches the handler defined in handler
  • which throws an ArithmeticException
  • which is caught in catcher
  • which returns 2 to handler
  • which returns 2.

This is not really surprising when you consider that the point of the condition handlers is to be executed in the dynamic context in which the exception is thrown (and of course you don't need resumable exceptions for this, just first-class functions and exceptions). But it is a bit counterintuitive to see a throw expression in a function foo which results in an expression being caught in a function called by foo.

A note about hygiene

The selector syntax and semantics in catch and resume-with clauses in this library are based on slingshot's, and the use of catch in a handle expression is derived from Clojure's regular try. However, this library differs from slingshot's selectors (and its try+) and Clojure's try in attempting to be as hygienic as possible. In a regular old try expression the bare symbol catch is enough to signal a catch clause, so that the following two expressions have the same semantics:

;; this:
(try foo
  (catch Exception e bar))
;; has the same semantics as this:
(let [e 1
      bar 2
      catch (fn [a b c] a)]
  (try foo
    (catch Exception e bar)))

Even though one might have expected the second to just evaluate to java.lang.Exception (or to throw an unhandled exception in evaluating foo). Similarly, in slingshot's selectors, the bare presence of % is all that matters:

(require '[slingshot.slingshot :as s])

;; (a) the selector here expands to (let [% <the exn>] (map? %))
(s/try+ (s/throw+ {}) (catch (map? %) _ 4))

;; (b) the selector here expands to (let [% <the exn>] (fn [%] (map? %)))
(s/try+ (s/throw+ {}) (catch (fn [%] (map? %)) _ 4))

;; (c) whereas the selector *here* expands to (let [% <the exn>] ((fn [a] (map? a)) %))
(s/try+ (s/throw+ {}) (catch (fn [a] (map? a)) _ 4))

;; (d) the selector here expands to (let [% <the exn>] (fn [x] (= (% x) "100%")))
(let [% (fn [x] (str x "%"))] 
  (s/try+ (s/throw+ "100%") (catch (fn [x] (= (% x) "100%")) _ 4)))

;; (e) whereas the selector here expands to (let [% <the exn>] ((fn [x] (= (perc x) "100%")) %))
(let [perc (fn [x] (str x "%"))]
  (s/try+ (s/throw+ "100%") (catch (fn [x] (= (perc x) "100%")) _ 4))

In (c), the symbol % is not free in the selector; in (e), it is free in the selector expression, but has a value in the environment already.

To avoid this kind of thing, this library requires you to actually refer to the catch, resume-with, and % that it provides, and to refer to them in a way it can detect:

(require '[conditions.core :as c :refer [%]])

;; % refers to conditions.core/%, so the catch clause will match
;; the thrown exception.
;; the expansion will be something like (let [G_123 <the exn>] (map? G_123))
(c/handle (c/rthrow {}) (c/catch (map? %) _ (c/resume-with 5)))

;; % is not free in the selector, so it is treated as a function and applied to the exn
;; the expansion will be something like (let [G_123 <the exn>] ((fn [%] (map? %)) G_123))
(c/handle (c/rthrow {}) (c/catch (fn [%] (map? %)) _ (c/resume-with 5)))

;; % is shadowed by the let. 
;; The expansion will be something like (let [G_123 <the exn>] ((map? %) G_123))
;; Consequently this one will trigger an exception, since (map? {}) is not a function!
(let [% {}] (c/handle (c/rthrow {}) (c/catch (map? %) _ (c/resume-with 5))))

;; Even though % has been bound in the let to c/%, it is still
;; considered shadowed inside c/handle, because we don't consider the
;; value of the local binding at compile time (it might not even be
;; available at compile time), only its existence. This results in an 
;; exception, as above.
(let [% c/%] (c/handle (c/rthrow {}) (c/catch (map? %) _ (c/resume-with 5))))

;; c/% explicitly refers to conditions.core/%, so this will work the same way as the 
;; first example.
(let [% {}] (c/handle (c/rthrow {}) (c/catch (map? c/%) _ (c/resume-with 5))))


Copyright © 2013 Ben Wolfson (wolfson at

Distributed under the Eclipse Public License, the same as Clojure.