[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If I've understood correctly, this isn't possible in Gregory's
>>scenario.
>>
>>(See
>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2006-06/msg00013.html
>>if you didn't see the whole description on guile-gtk-general already.)
>
> I don't understand. The way I read it, Gregory concludes his email
> with a solution for his problem. In any event, it's easy to write your
> own GC protection scheme, which can have different semantics.
That's true, but surely Guile should be helping developers out here?
Is it hard to allow scm_gc_unprotect_object within GC, or does it
constrain the GC implementation in some undesirable way?
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
