Hi,
On Mon 20 Jul 2009 11:20, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> Andy Wingo writes:
>
> [...]
>
Array_handle_release is a bad idea.
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>
>> FWIW, I agree (I think with both of you) that `we migh
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo writes:
[...]
>>> Array_handle_release is a bad idea.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> FWIW, I agree (I think with both of you) that `we might need it in
> future' is not a good argument, but that API compatibility is
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hey,
>
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> You can't just write functions that return values, you have to contort
>> code to store temporaries and then release and then return. You have
>> to write paired statements. If you call a user function, you really
Hey,
Andy Wingo writes:
[...]
> You can't just write functions that return values, you have to contort
> code to store temporaries and then release and then return. You have
> to write paired statements. If you call a user function, you really
> should set up a dynwind, which conses, and contor
Hi,
On Thu 09 Jul 2009 22:08, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> 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.
>
> To me, *this* is a weak argument. ;-)
Heh, allow me to elaborate then. "Let's keep
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 06 Jul 2009 21:30, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
>> 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 sh
Hi,
On Mon 06 Jul 2009 21:30, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Good question. I suppose you have this case in mind:
>>
>> (define s0 (string "foo"))
>> (define s1 (substring/shared s0 0))
>> (define s2 (substring/shared s1 0))
>> (par-for-each (lambda
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> Good question. I suppose you have this case in mind:
>
> (define s0 (string "foo"))
> (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. OTO
Hi,
On Sun 05 Jul 2009 12:14, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> I'm hacking on this code right now, and have come to think that
>> scm_array_handle_release is superfluous. It shouldn't protect against
>> concurrent modification of the data, as that should be done w
Hello,
Andy Wingo writes:
> I'm hacking on this code right now, and have come to think that
> scm_array_handle_release is superfluous. It shouldn't protect against
> concurrent modification of the data, as that should be done with
> user-implemented mutexen. It obviously doesn't do anything now
Hey folks :)
On Thu 18 Sep 2008 11:17, "Neil Jerram" writes:
> In my view, this part is still useful:
>
> "You must take care to always unreserve an array after reserving it,
> also in the presence of non-local exits. To simplify this, reserving
> and unreserving work like a dynwind context (see
Neil Jerram writes:
> [..] but I would like to
> check that I haven't forgotten NEWS for the things I've worked on, and
> I should be able to do that tomorrow evening or Saturday.
I've done that now, resulting in [1], so please feel free to go ahead
with the release whenever it is convenient for
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> Maybe 1.8.7 is approaching now?
>>
>> Yes, that would be good. It might just be worth fixing the jmp_buf
>> definition problem before that (which I should get to in the next week
>> or
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Maybe 1.8.7 is approaching now?
>
> Yes, that would be good. It might just be worth fixing the jmp_buf
> definition problem before that (which I should get to in the next week
> or so) - but on the other hand we already have plenty
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Cool, thanks for going over all these loose ends! ;-)
I'm really happy to be getting through them... these are things that
have been sitting in my inbox for ages.
> Maybe 1.8.7 is approaching now?
Yes, that would be good. It might just be worth fixing
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Not quite. If get/release are left as is (i.e., they do not establish a
>> dynwind context), I would write something along the lines of:
>>
>> You must take care to always unreserve an array after reserving it,
>> also in t
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Not quite. If get/release are left as is (i.e., they do not establish a
> dynwind context), I would write something along the lines of:
>
> You must take care to always unreserve an array after reserving it,
> also in the presence of non-local exits
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/9/18 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I would suggest that we drop that mention of dynwinds from the manual.
Just to clarify: I'm suggesting fixing the manual so that it conforms to
the implementation, not the opposite.
> In my view, this
2008/9/18 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I submitted this bug:
>
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?24292
That's great, thanks.
> I would suggest that we drop that mention of dynwinds from the manual.
In my view, this part is still useful:
"You must take care to always unreser
Hi,
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
and (2) I don't know of any other function that does a dynwind behind
the scenes (IOW, let's not break the "rule of least surprise").
>>
>> I meant "I don't know of a function that does a `dynwind_begin'
>> *alone*" (of course there are plen
2008/9/16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> If `get_handle ()' creates a dynwind that ends in `release_handle ()',
> then code like the following will no longer work as expected:
>
> scm_dynwind_begin ();
> scm_dynwind_unwind_handler ();
> scm array_get_handle ();
>
> ...
>
> scm_dynwin
Hello!
"Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/9/15 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Now, as it happens, the code doesn't actually implement what the
>>> manual says, and in fact scm_array_handle_release() is currently a
>>> no-o
2008/9/15 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Now, as it happens, the code doesn't actually implement what the
>> manual says, and in fact scm_array_handle_release() is currently a
>> no-op! But I believe the manual's intention is sensible, so it
23 matches
Mail list logo
