[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: srfi-18 requirements

From: Julian Graham
Subject: Re: srfi-18 requirements
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:04:23 -0500

> As previously discussed, I think it's better for the core behavior to
> be defined - i.e. by signaling some kind of error - than undefined as
> it is now.
> I suggest we introduce 'locking-abandoned-mutex-error as a new throw
> key, and fat_mutex_lock() can throw that.  That's then trivial for the
> SRFI-18 API to catch and reraise as a SRFI-34/35 exception.
> OK?

Works for me.  I'll try to have something to you this weekend.


reply via email to

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