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: Backtrace and enhanced catch Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: <87y816d7s0.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <200511301616.22258.bkorb@gnu.org> <87wthpkyan.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <43B69F41.6030509@xs4all.nl> <87hd8pb8o7.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87lkxy3abo.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <877j9i31gc.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87acebhf1o.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87oe2foubc.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8764oc4boj.fsf@zagadka.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138049571 31245 80.91.229.2 (23 Jan 2006 20:52:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hanwen@xs4all.nl, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 23 21:52:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F18g9-000712-1U for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:52:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F18in-0003oA-HT for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:55:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F187B-0002ph-Iy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:16:37 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F1879-0002oc-CQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:16:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1877-0002nb-VZ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:16:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1F18Bu-0008P6-Tz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:21:31 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-129-132-201.range86-129.btcentralplus.com [86.129.132.201]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F980409FC7; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD359F929; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:11:12 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <8764oc4boj.fsf@zagadka.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:47:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) 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:5609 Archived-At: Marius Vollmer writes: > Neil Jerram 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! Great; thanks for the review. > 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. Yes, that makes good sense. I can't think of anything better than "pre-unwind", so I'll use that in all new names. I don't think it's worth changing any preexisting names though, such as struct lazy_catch - do you agree? >> 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, 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. OK, that makes sense too, so long as we don't have to worry about preserving source compatibility for functions that have SCM_API but are not part of the Guile API. And my understanding is that "part of the Guile API" <=> "documented in the manual". Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel