On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug Evans <[email protected]> writes: > >> What I want is all the functionality of scm_c_catch and all the >> functionality of scm_c_with_continuation_barrier ... which is exactly >> what scm_i_with_continuation_barrier is. >> >> So ... any chance in exporting scm_i_with_continuation_barrier? >> [renamed of course :-)] >> How about scm_c_catch_with_continuation_barrier? > > FWIW, I think this is a fine idea. I haven't looked closely enough to > have an opinion about the name, but I'll leave that for others to hash > out, or your best judgment if no one else chimes in. > > One thing: if we export it, we should also document it. > > Would you like to prepare a patch for stable-2.0?
I was going to send this earlier, but better late than never. I looked into implementing this and then I discovered why I'm not currently using scm_c_with_continuation_barrier: scm_with_guile already calls it. So for my current purposes I don't need an exported scm_i_with_continuation_barrier. I still think it's a reasonable thing to do, but the need isn't pressing.
