[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: continuation barriers
From: |
Linas Vepstas |
Subject: |
Re: continuation barriers |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:42:15 -0500 |
Hi Neil,
2009/8/26 Neil Jerram <address@hidden>:
> Linas Vepstas <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> i.e. I'd like something like this to work:
>>
>> scm_c_eval_string(" ... (call/cc (lambda (k) (set! *myk* k))) ...");
>> ... some_c_code(...);
>> scm_c_eval_string(" ... (*myk* 42) ...");
>
> I think there are a couple of problems here.
>
> The first is as you've noted, that scm_c_eval_string() has a
> scm_c_with_continuation_barrier() hiding inside it.
I mis-spoke or mis-implied -- the thing holding the continuation
barrier is scm_with_guile(). There may also be one within
scm_c_eval_str() although I did not immediately spot it.
> You can avoid
> that by using some other method for calling from C into Scheme, for
> example:
What you described would seem to work, except that what I really
need is a a variant of scm_with_guile() without the continuation
barrier. Or rather, a variant of scm_with_guile() which uses a
continuation barrier only if the stack underneath is *different*
than what it was when the continuation was defined. (Right?
since if the stack is the same, using the continuation can't
mess up the stack.)
I think that what I suggest is straightforward to code up: and
I think its safe. Would anyone care for a patch against 1.9.2 or
1.9.3 or whatever?
--linas