On Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:24:09 -0400 Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > Hi Chris, > Chris Vine <vine35792...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:35:38 -0400 > > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > >> > >> I think it's probably fine for 2.2, although a more careful check should > >> be made for differences in behavior between the old and new > >> implementations, and tests should be added. I'll try to get to it soon. > > > > If it is going in 2.2 (or 3.0) it would be nice if the ports could be > > suspendable. put-bytevector (used by write!) is suspendable; > > get-bytevector-some (used by read!) is not. > > Unless I'm mistaken, nothing done within custom ports is suspendable, > regardless of which I/O primitives are used, because the custom port > implementations themselves are all written in C. The custom port > handlers such as 'read!' and 'write!' are always invoked from C code. > Caleb Ristvedt recently ran into this problem and posted about it on > guile-user: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2019-03/msg00032.html > > I responded here: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2019-04/msg00000.html > > I'm not sure off-hand what would be required to re-implement custom > ports in suspendable Scheme code. Andy Wingo would be a good person to > ask, since he implemented (ice-9 suspendable-ports).
You are probably right about custom ports' implementations. I encountered a similar problem with guile-gnutls ports. (In the case of guile-gnutls, because TLS connections are one of the areas where you would expect suspendable i/o to be useful, that is a shame.) Chris
