Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.

[Paul Eggert]

Yuri Khan wrote:
> On the Emacs side of the module API, Emacs should not have to
> implement any special treatment for C++ exceptions. (Because if it
> does, where do we draw the line? Should Emacs then handle any other
> languages’ exceptions?)

This approach would be fine, if we can figure out how to solve the 
exception-handling problem.

> A sane approach is to have a C-only API, and module developers who
> want to write modules in other languages will devise their own
> wrappers/adaptors to make interfacing with Emacs easier and less
> error-prone. As part of its contract, such an adaptor shall prevent
> any exceptions from crossing the module boundary.

That sounds reasonable, and should simplify the module API, at least for 
C-language modules.

> > >If this simplification cannot be done, one possible workaround would be to
> > >say that C++ modules should not use nontrivial destructors. This would be a
> > >different way to let us simplify emacs-module.c significantly, albeit a way
> > >that is less satisfactory for C++ modules.

> I’m lacking full context here; do you mean not using nontrivial
> destructors*at all*?

I'm lacking context too, but I suppose the answer might be "yes", or at least 
"yes, unless you can guarantee by some other means that stack overflow cannot 
occur". Which does indeed sound unsatisfactory.