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: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:04:23 -0500 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210802071604s2519d5c5qa6035426de62f29@mail.gmail.com> References: <2bc5f8210710101854m1254160ei451026182b87e767@mail.gmail.com> <87ejc8kvnk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <2bc5f8210801231523k62e9f6ddq17eb87c69df5ae16@mail.gmail.com> <877ihy3e82.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <2bc5f8210801241738j25c594wfc347b337aa7ed47@mail.gmail.com> <2bc5f8210801271806o478f2e24u1bbc77a21a270d5a@mail.gmail.com> <87abmig9v5.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <2bc5f8210802042227p7a2cb926ge64414c3665082dd@mail.gmail.com> <87fxw55zm0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <871w7os5gn.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202429080 24626 80.91.229.12 (8 Feb 2008 00:04:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Neil Jerram" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 08 01:05:01 2008 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 1JNGji-0004aV-0M for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:04:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGjF-0001ga-FU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGjD-0001gR-2w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGjB-0001gB-TU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGjB-0001g8-Nz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:25 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JNGjA-0006HE-QD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:25 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so3041856fga.30 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:04:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7velcIOcx2vDaroRdjKkHZNJ1EOoPTmOD6pNH1ruyMc=; b=H2Yol6esZB4CgcL2td/x/xWVl6Rw/8/RBZeN8SPhRM888HmjU42kxRAnLGhunxZqqgDPPR5FU3i9KXd5K3EDvDoEVXhkkeE//DgeO/Dp2g0GZNm5wiKSjbMVmC4+K3COrR1M8N0qbWh6CWgdl2IRnlIL7cRNLXQX7/dcAapVCDQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dyj3DgiBZF4qSRMVdW0iuVUdA1dq2AVcSniPjSx6SKD9hLC/zz6C6NaGPV/Z9mEb/KAKoOsdkIl82V6zjRlx2mccIk1S+GhoeoApeE+vHuJGIUolKvChu93HbDAt4Fa6XxLJ8zaGY/yOoSxH0EpzyTQKC4hkvFc1G3OGJmmW6nw= Original-Received: by 10.82.148.7 with SMTP id v7mr21770036bud.10.1202429063543; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:04:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.82.100.9 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:04:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <871w7os5gn.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> 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:6994 Archived-At: > 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