Re: [Chicken-users] quick port question

[Kon Lovett]

On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Peter Keller wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:38:16PM -0500, Graham Fawcett wrote:
> > On 2/24/07, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > On 2/23/07, john <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Hi. Are ports automatically closed when out of scope?
> > >
> > > No. You could set a finalizer, though.
> >
> > It seems to me that *all* ports should be closed upon finalization,
> > unless explicitly told not to. That is, all ports should have
> > close-*-port as a default finalizer, and there should be a procedure
> > available to unregister the finalizer in the rare cases where it
> > matters to leave it open.
>
> If you need to do this type of thing, unwind-protect is your  
> friend. There
> is no guarantee that the finalizer will be called when it *must*
> be called in order not to run out of file descriptors when you need
> something. Unwind-protect is the way to do this type of clean up.

Yes, or use the 'call-with-*-file' & 'with-*-file' procedures.

Automatic system resource release upon GC is nice but not R5RS behavior.

> Later,
> -pete
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users