From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: srfi-18 requirements Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:38:00 +0000 Message-ID: <871w7os5gn.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <2bc5f8210710101854m1254160ei451026182b87e767@mail.gmail.com> <2bc5f8210801101839w2b6ab7f8h3d99b6db35620a6@mail.gmail.com> <874pddcjdf.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <2bc5f8210801191210h72903a37q1c8f60e3638bfdba@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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202427503 20471 80.91.229.12 (7 Feb 2008 23:38:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Julian Graham" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 08 00:38:44 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 1JNGKH-0005OE-WE for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:38:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGJp-00047g-Bb for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:38:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGJm-00047Q-Uh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:38:10 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGJk-000476-MM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:38:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JNGJk-000473-ET for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:38:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JNGJg-00022X-8t; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:38:04 -0500 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6A71F7F83; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:38:01 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215FF3800A; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:38:01 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87fxw55zm0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:23:03 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:6993 Archived-At: >> * What should be the behavior of fat_mutex_lock when attempting to >> lock an abandoned mutex -- in your earlier email, you seemed amenable >> to the parts of SRFI-18 that shore up some of the poorly-defined >> threading behavior in core threads. So should locking an abandoned >> mutex be an error? If so, what kind? Or should locking an abandoned >> mutex not be an error at all unless you do it using the SRFI-18 API? 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? Regards, Neil