Re: proposed getitimer and setitimer functions

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Should we increase the resolution of the Scheme version of
> setitimer, or reflect the C version of setitimer mostly unchanged?
> The best thing would be to tack an explicit unit onto the duration.

There's also an argument to be made for implementing a thin wrapper
around setitimer, just enough to provide its full functionality at the
scheme level, and then leave more sophisticated processing to the
scheme level.  In the case of setitimer, you're publishing a well
known unix function, so people using it already have expectations
about it's interface and behavior.

This also brings up something I've thought about from time to time.  I
wonder if it might be useful to have some arrangement where we can
create and publish C-side functions that aren't to be used directly,
but will be wrapped an published by other ice-9 modules...

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD