Re: Some introductory docs about C level threading

From: tomas@fabula.de
Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>, tomas@fabula.de
Subject: Re: Some introductory docs about C level threading
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:47:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050202134740.GA19682@www> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ljlla714o9.fsf@troy.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:18:14PM +0100, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> tomas@fabula.de writes:
> 
> > Yes. I think this looks very nice. Some might argue for something more
> > abstract than an integer (a signal_t or whatnot) -- I wouldn't oppose,
> > but I'm very happy with what you propose.
> 
> Yes, I started with scm_t_signal_token, but the OS signal identifiers
> are already ints and when we want to mix them, we need to use ints as
> well.

...unless you let scm_create_new_os_signal () take an integer parameter
(the OS signal identifier) or a magic constant (NEW_OS_SIGNAL or something
like that, to return a `new' signal token).

As I said, to me this is very reasonable. I too lean towards the
``int'' side. To me integers seem quite abstract already ;-)

> I am not starting to work on this immediately, tho.  Anyone?  Tomas?
> The file to look at would be scmsigs.c

I'll have a look at it on Fryday/weekend. At the moment I'm at a customer's
place and I bet they don't even *know* I have Internet connectivity ;-)

Thanks
-- tomás

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

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