On Dec 6, 2005, at 14:10, Marius Vollmer wrote:
Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Somebody please check me on this, I'm not sure if scm_leave_guile can
be relied upon to work.
I believe everything you say is correct, unfortunately.
Sorry. :-)
I was hoping maybe I was missing something.
Ken Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Somebody please check me on this, I'm not sure if scm_leave_guile can
> be relied upon to work.
I believe everything you say is correct, unfortunately.
I will make the change you propose to scm_without_guile and remove
scm_leave_guile and scm_enter_guile
Somebody please check me on this, I'm not sure if scm_leave_guile can
be relied upon to work. Actually, it's the suspend() function inside
it, in the current implementation, but the issue extends to
scm_leave_guile, and scm_without_guile in its current implementation.
Consider this sequence:
