* scm_raise using raise()
@ 2006-12-14 0:03 Kevin Ryde
2006-12-31 11:28 ` Neil Jerram
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Ryde @ 2006-12-14 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
Is there a reason scm_raise is implemented using kill() instead of
raise()?
I suppose raise() is a C89-ism, but nowadays it can be used
unconditionally can't it? (And in fact for instance mingw has raise
but not kill.)
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: scm_raise using raise()
2006-12-14 0:03 scm_raise using raise() Kevin Ryde
@ 2006-12-31 11:28 ` Neil Jerram
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Neil Jerram @ 2006-12-31 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
> Is there a reason scm_raise is implemented using kill() instead of
> raise()?
Not that I know of.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-31 11:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-12-14 0:03 scm_raise using raise() Kevin Ryde
2006-12-31 11:28 ` Neil Jerram
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).