[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
why "in_sighandler"?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
why "in_sighandler"? |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:51:39 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Could someone explain the difference between `handling_signal' and
`in_sighandler'? Depending on the answer I'm likely to suggest a renaming,
since it seems that either they are the same and should be merged or they
are different and should say so directly in their name.
Stefan
- why "in_sighandler"?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan D., 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21