[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: srfi-18 requirements
From: |
Julian Graham |
Subject: |
Re: srfi-18 requirements |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:02:53 -0400 |
Hi Neil,
> It looks great. I still have a few minor queries, but it's close
> enough now that I've committed this latest patch to CVS; it'll be much
> more convenient to work on the few remaining queries incrementally,
> rather than with respect to threads.c as it was prior to all these
> changes.
Hey, great! Maybe this is premature (without the Scheme
implementation being in yet), but: Thanks for your patience and
prudent counsel over these last several months.
As regards the changes below, I've attached a patch against the new
HEAD that I think resolves the issues you mentioned.
> Finally, please note that we will need a NEWS entry for this work.
> Are you happy to write that too? (You may of course prefer to defer
> this until the SRFI-18 Scheme parts are committed too - that's
> absolutely fine.)
Yes, I'm happy to write the NEWS entry, but think I would like to wait
to submit it until everything's in. And speaking of the Scheme parts,
shall I go ahead and send you a patch that includes those? I expect
that my original implementation won't need that much tweaking to
cooperate with the new core interfaces; it shouldn't take long.
Speaking of which, though, I've already run into some difficulty
implementing mutex-state -- the solution you proposed earlier depends
on mutex-owner being visible to Scheme code (it's not, at the moment),
and I can't figure out how to write mutex-state efficiently without it
(or some other way of passively inspecting the mutex). Any
suggestions would be appreciated!
Regards,
Julian
srfi-18-core.fixups.HEAD.patch
Description: Text Data