> CLOS is small and easy compared to the conditions CLOS is much more complex than conditions. > scheme did it right Not at all. Scheme was not providing an

> CLOS is small and easy compared to the conditions CLOS is much more complex than conditions. > scheme did it right Not at all. Scheme was not providing any error handling in the language up to R5RS and had then zillions of different implementation specific extensions, many of them influenced by Common Lisp's condition system. Compare: https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/Error-System.html#Error-System https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-sc... https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/exns.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/exns.html https://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Exceptions https://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Exceptions https://www.scheme.com/tspl4/exceptions.html https://www.scheme.com/tspl4/exceptions.html For R7RS large they are still finding out what to do. https://bitbucket.org/cowan/r7rs-wg1-infra/src/default/ExceptionsErrorsAndConditions.md https://bitbucket.org/cowan/r7rs-wg1-infra/src/default/Excep...