guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Replacement for SCM_SETJMPBUF?


From: Gary Houston
Subject: Re: Replacement for SCM_SETJMPBUF?
Date: 17 Sep 2001 17:46:33 -0000

> From: Rob Browning <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:46:59 -0500
> 
> > The change that would fix the copy/pasting is to remove the unwinding
> > from scm_internal_cwdr, so I think this is all that needs to be
> > considered for 1.6.
> 
> OK.  I'm happy to do that, but if we think anyone has been using this
> function as-is, expecting it to work as documented, it might be better
> if we changed the name.  An entry in the NEWS file might be easy to
> miss.

Hmm, call-with-dynamic-root will also change, and about half of its
docstring is dedicated to explaining the unwinding.  Seems like bad
form to change it.  Better to deprecate it and leave it untouched
for while.

If so, we would need replacement names.  If the exception handler was
dropped too, we'd be left with something like:

call-with-continuation-blocking
scm_call_with_continuation_blocking
scm_c_call_with_continuation_blocking

These would still need to use a handler (or dynamic-wind) internally
to repair the scm_root state when throwing out of the called thunk,
but that's an implementation detail.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]