From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: array handles and non-local exits Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:08:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87ljmxsgxp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <49dd78620809151317i3421081ey3337d678477046ab@mail.gmail.com> <87ljxsv80p.fsf@gnu.org> <49dd78620809171232n745ac8ecgd2c3936989ce723b@mail.gmail.com> <87myi5g98g.fsf@gnu.org> <49dd78620809180217p21c36802me305270af14a6f95@mail.gmail.com> <87my7j8jr6.fsf@gnu.org> <873a99ftap.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247173779 25061 80.91.229.12 (9 Jul 2009 21:09:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:09:39 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 09 23:09:32 2009 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 1MP0ry-0007aJ-1A for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:09:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50492 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MP0rx-0001U7-GG for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:09:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MP0rB-0001CI-4E for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:08:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MP0r6-0001AV-E2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:08:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59175 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MP0r6-0001AO-8I for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:08:36 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:49700 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MP0r5-0000ES-Qn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:08:36 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MP0r2-0003Wm-58 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:08:32 +0000 Original-Received: from acces.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:08:32 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by acces.bordeaux.inria.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:08:32 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 38 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: acces.bordeaux.inria.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 Messidor an 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7UPoOm+C4LWR9+Fljc+4h9pS+h8= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:8856 Archived-At: Hello, Andy Wingo writes: > On Mon 06 Jul 2009 21:30, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> Yes. OTOH, the doc doesn't say that concurrent array accesses are safe, >> so array accesses are supposed to be synchronized at the application >> level, using mutexes, I suppose. > > They should be safe in the sense that they shouldn't crash Guile, but > the result may be strange -- e.g. hashtable insertion. Yes, of course. >> Still, I don't feel like we have any compelling reason to remove >> `scm_array_handle_release ()'. One argument to keep it is that it's the >> kind of thing that's much easier to remove than to reinstate, and "we >> never know". Also, removing it would cause gratuitous >> incompatibility. > > To me this is a weak argument, especially given that much code probably > doesn't do the right thing in the presence of nonlocal exits. To me, *this* is a weak argument. ;-) > Regarding compatibility, we could #define it to nothing if we compile > without DISABLE_DEPRECATED. Or we can always #define it to nothing. From an API design viewpoint, I find it consistent to have `release ()'. If you're concerned about the function call overhead, then turning it into a macro will address that concern. :-) Thanks, Ludo'.