Re: Doing more with the new frames

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> This is quite nice I think, when you get the idea and use
> scm_block_async correctly.  However, when people see scm_block_asyncs
> and scm_unblock_asyncs in async.h, they might be inclined to use them as
>
>     scm_block_asyncs ();
>
>     [ asyncs are blocked here? ]
>
>     scm_unblock_asyncs ();
>
> This would be quite wrong.  Ok, scm_block_asyncs is probably unique
> since there is also scm_unblock_asyncs which wouldn't be there for,
> say, scm_with_current_output.
>
> Should we worry?

As long as our documentation is good enough that people don't have to
figure things out by poking around in the headers and guessing, then I
suspect it's fine.  It'd probably be a good idea to have cross-refs in
the scm_begin_frame docs to all the other relevant "modifier"
functions.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4