From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Julian Graham" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: srfi-18 requirements Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:25 -0400 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210710120831q5c90dcfes930595fa3eb16a77@mail.gmail.com> References: <2bc5f8210710101854m1254160ei451026182b87e767@mail.gmail.com> <87lka8pvv3.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1192203920 7826 80.91.229.12 (12 Oct 2007 15:45:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:45:20 +0000 (UTC) To: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 12 17:45:10 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IgMUH-0003Pa-EU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:31:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgMUB-0001Vc-1S for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IgMU6-0001VN-AZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IgMU4-0001VB-P2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgMU4-0001V8-K5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IgMU4-0001Zv-Cf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so834053nfh for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8m4t6jSFFgXSrpqd4Vp56jm8IefFG37toWGbtfSTcp8=; b=mfrei4twf3sVPDcjUYGbK+xLstB614tBKnKMlcjAwbkr/dc7OeI/sHN9IxGkvWGtsjwoIyOQvuGmCU9iTbeafQ5WTe/AMWJowXjpUw0Uh8rGZcg8MUEKeAOpagseB3TIxZAJ11ujZvmBUmAzDrvhG8WM9SIbmi/KQj8MHzMZ8GA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HFp2brxq2NLRhP61efYOyaeKTK2nQNMx3PWwGRP+HElty1rOgX1lPPTEOf8b+2VK1EkseoMlKO4lifPgt4vbr1gWHfDqOMysY1is0EgKBeF+UlPTfnH3K5qMO/1KFSSM50bl3zJhek9xLh8ljke0eBy9APmo7u29rPcdMo8B/PI= Original-Received: by 10.82.126.5 with SMTP id y5mr6211343buc.1192203086074; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.82.176.12 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87lka8pvv3.fsf@laas.fr> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6837 Archived-At: Hi Ludovic, > Thus, you'd need to pinpoint what can be implemented without changing > the core API (e.g., do the SRFI-18 type predicates really require > changes in the core type predicates, or can they be implemented without > changing the core API?), what requires changes/additions in the core > API, etc. The type predicates would be additions to the core API, not modifications to it. The addition of timeouts to the mutex and condition variable functions could be done by creating new functions (scm_lock_mutex_timed, scm_wait_condition_variable_timed) instead of modifying the signatures of the existing ones. Would that be okay? Regards, Julian _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel