[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.
Regards,
Julian
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/02
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/05
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/07
- Re: srfi-18 requirements,
Julian Graham <=
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/11
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/19
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/19
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/21
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/21
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/24
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/24
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/24