Hi, On Mon 06 Jul 2009 21:30, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> Good question. I suppose you have this case in mind: >> >> (define s0 (string "foooooo")) >> (define s1 (substring/shared s0 0)) >> (define s2 (substring/shared s1 0)) >> (par-for-each (lambda (s) (string-set! s 0 #\b)) >> (list s0 s1 s2)) > > 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. > 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. Regarding compatibility, we could #define it to nothing if we compile without DISABLE_DEPRECATED. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
