From: Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
To: "Julian Graham" <joolean@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: srfi-18 requirements
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:29:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tziaogxp.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2bc5f8210804031207s25be680aj99b50eaa1d66b6d7@mail.gmail.com> (Julian Graham's message of "Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:07:16 -0400")
"Julian Graham" <joolean@gmail.com> writes:
> Were we to go this route (i.e., non-coexistence), I think the best
> solution would be something along the lines of the divide between
> Guile's built-in hash tables and SRFI-69 hash tables -- that is,
> obvious incompatibility based on data type. But that seems like an
> awful lot of work and a potential loss in terms of flexibility for
> developers.
I agree; so overall, it seems clear that we don't want to take this
route.
> With regard to supporting locked/not-owned:
>
>
>> 1. Calling lock-mutex with a thread parameter different from the
>> calling thread, and which isn't #f. I believe this should be a core
>> feature (as well as a SRFI-18 one), and it had completely escaped my
>> notice that this detail had evaporated from your patches. I believe
>> you implemented this originally, then removed it following my attempt
>> to draw a line between core stuff and SRFI-18 stuff - so I guess you
>> thought that was one of the implications of what I wrote; sorry about
>> that. Would it be easy at this point to reinstate this?
>
> That was my assumption, yes. Sorry! I can certainly reinstate, and
> will do so in the next patch I submit. While we're discussing this,
> though, any design issues you'd like to consider? E.g., this might
> not be something we'd want every mutex to support, so we could add a
> flag to make-mutex, a la the earlier stuff for external unlocking.
I think it depends whether we see the existing make-mutex flags as a
policing thing or as a trying-to-be-helpful-at-runtime thing. My view
is that they are mostly trying to be helpful, specifically to catch
the bugs where a developer who is expecting traditional mutex
behaviour accidentally calls unlock-mutex from the wrong thread, or on
a mutex that isn't locked. In addition, there is the possibility that
some existing code might be relying on exceptions being raised in
these cases.
The (lock-mutex ... thread) case feels to me to be quite different
from this, because the (lock-mutex ...) call that a developer has to
write, in order to take advantage of the SRFI-18 features, is
different at the source code level: to get the SRFI-18 behaviour, the
developer has to explicitly supply the optional thread parameter.
This makes it impossible (or as near impossible as we care about) that
a developer would get the SRFI-18 behaviour by mistake; and existing
code (which cannot specify the thread parameter, because it isn't
supported yet!) will automatically continue to get the traditional
behaviour.
Therefore I don't see the same kind of need for a make-mutex flag
here, as there was for the unlock cases.
>> 2. Calling lock-mutex with thread parameter #f, such as to produce the
>> SRFI-18 locked/not-owned state. My previous pure Scheme suggestion
>> for locked/not-owned was based on my statement that:
>
> ...
>
>> In terms of the C/Scheme boundary, one possible representation of this
>> would be to introduce a mutex-locked? primitive, which is significant
>> when mutex-owner returns #f, and distinguishes between the normal
>> unlocked state and locked/not-owned.
>
> ...
>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think that's quite elegant, actually. On initial consideration I
> was going to suggest that we bring back the use of SCM_UNSPECIFIED in
> the context of mutex ownership (that is, fat_mutex.owner can be
> SCM_UNSPECIFIED, #f, or a thread) that I'd removed in the final
> version of my patch -- after all, mutex-owner is for all intents and
> purposes new to the API, so we've got some freedom in how it's
> defined. ...But I think I prefer the solution you describe above,
> since it has the additional benefit of exposing only as much
> information about mutex state as a caller is interested in. So I'll
> go with that, I think, and send you a new patch for the core that
> incorporates all of this. Let me know if that's not okay.
Sounds good to me!
Regards,
Neil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-09 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-11 1:54 srfi-18 requirements Julian Graham
2007-10-12 8:42 ` Ludovic Courtès
2007-10-12 15:31 ` Julian Graham
2007-10-15 22:26 ` Julian Graham
2007-10-15 22:35 ` Stephen Compall
2007-10-15 22:47 ` Julian Graham
2007-10-29 14:37 ` Julian Graham
2007-11-26 18:11 ` Julian Graham
2007-11-27 9:14 ` Ludovic Courtès
2007-11-28 18:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
2007-11-28 18:55 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-01 5:08 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-01 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2007-12-02 3:59 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-04 22:20 ` Neil Jerram
2007-12-04 22:29 ` Neil Jerram
2007-12-11 4:20 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-18 4:30 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-28 18:46 ` Ludovic Courtès
2007-12-28 19:08 ` Julian Graham
2007-12-28 22:35 ` Neil Jerram
2007-12-30 11:04 ` Neil Jerram
2007-12-30 20:38 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-01 19:09 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-04 5:01 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-05 0:30 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-06 21:41 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-08 23:11 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-11 2:39 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-17 1:48 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-19 20:10 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-23 22:46 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-23 23:23 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-25 1:07 ` Neil Jerram
2008-01-25 1:38 ` Julian Graham
2008-01-28 2:06 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-03 0:30 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-05 6:27 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-07 1:23 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-07 3:06 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-07 23:26 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-07 23:33 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-07 23:38 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-08 0:04 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-11 5:14 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-19 22:48 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-20 2:10 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-22 0:33 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-22 4:14 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-24 9:41 ` Neil Jerram
2008-02-24 18:17 ` Julian Graham
2008-02-24 23:29 ` Neil Jerram
2008-03-01 19:56 ` Julian Graham
2008-03-08 16:34 ` Neil Jerram
2008-03-11 4:02 ` Julian Graham
2008-03-22 18:55 ` Julian Graham
2008-03-23 23:57 ` Neil Jerram
2008-03-24 22:03 ` Neil Jerram
2008-03-26 15:55 ` Julian Graham
2008-04-03 0:18 ` Neil Jerram
2008-04-03 19:07 ` Julian Graham
2008-04-09 21:29 ` Neil Jerram [this message]
2008-04-14 0:43 ` Julian Graham
2008-05-14 1:23 ` Julian Graham
2008-05-14 21:13 ` Neil Jerram
2008-05-14 23:11 ` Neil Jerram
2008-05-15 5:05 ` Julian Graham
2008-05-24 11:42 ` Neil Jerram
2008-05-24 13:55 ` Neil Jerram
2008-05-25 2:07 ` Julian Graham
2008-05-31 21:41 ` Ludovic Courtès
2008-06-02 4:48 ` Julian Graham
2008-06-21 5:03 ` Julian Graham
2008-06-30 17:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
2008-01-08 23:41 ` Neil Jerram
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87tziaogxp.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net \
--to=neil@ossau.uklinux.net \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=joolean@gmail.com \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).