[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Release 1.6 critical TODO items.
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: Release 1.6 critical TODO items. |
Date: |
11 Mar 2002 17:42:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 |
Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > gentemp created symbols that were unique in a given obarray, which had
> >> > not much to do with the global hash table that holds all (interned)
> >> > symbols. when you had no other use for the obarray, using gentemp
> >> > with a specific obarray was equivalent to using a specific prefix.
> >>
> >> OK, so do I have to worry about thread safety?
> >
> > Yes, I'd say so. We should probably offer a syntactic form for
> > wrapping code that needs to run isolated. Is there some SRFI about
> > this?
>
> Hmm -- could you elaborate? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking?
> I was just asking if I should wrap my syncase.scm gensym internals
> with a (lock-mutex) (unlock-mutex) pair...
Yes, that's what I wanted you to do. I also speculated about how to
make this easier with some compact syntax like
(begin-synchronized
...)
where the 'begin-synchronized' form is only being executed by at most
one thread at any one time. This should encourage people to actually
synchronize their code properly. Since this should be a common thing
to do, I was asking whether one of the threading SRFIs deals with
this.
- Re: Release 1.6 critical TODO items.,
Marius Vollmer <=