Re: Backtrace and enhanced catch

[Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de>]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> The main part of this patch is appended below, and I would appreciate
> any comments that anyone may have 

Looks very good to me.  Please go ahead.  Thanks!

One (minor?) point I have is the term "lazy".  I am not sure if it is
the right term to use.  It has meaning for people who already know
lazy-catch, but I'd say it is not really descriptive of what it does.
Something like "pre-unwind" handler might give a better hint of how it
differs from the 'post-unwind' handler.

Hmm, what I'm trying to say here that "lazy" is not some standard,
established terminology, and if we come up with something better, we
should feel free to change terminology.

> One point is that I have removed the "SCM_API" from the declaration of
> scm_i_with_continuation_barrier.  My understanding is that
> scm_i_with_continuation_barrier (like scm_i_* functions in general) is
> a libguile-internal function and so does not need to be exported from
> the libguile DLL in a Windows build (which is what SCM_API is for).

Yeah.  I have to say that I don't really understand the meaning of
SCM_API.  I mostly treat it is as a purely technical thing: you need
to use it when you want code outside this DLL to call the function.  I
don't treat it as a way to document what is in the Guile API and what
isn't.

For example, a macro or inline function that is in the Guile API might
expand into a call to a scm_i_ function.  That function than needs to
be flagged with SCM_API although it is not part of the API.

I see no point in preventing people from calling internal functions as
long as they know that they are internal.  That's why I put SCM_API on
all functions with global scope.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel