[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: |
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:17:11 -0500 |
> Agreed, that's a nice solution. The matter of whether a mutex can be
> unlocked by another thread will depend on an application's design for
> how it uses that mutex, and it feels right for the application to
> declare this when the mutex is created, instead of on every unlock
> call.
>
> On the Scheme level, I think the call can still be `make-mutex', with
> optional flag args - is that right?
Yes. For C, though, how do you want to manage passing these flags? I
imagine the primitive should be named something like
scm_make_mutex_with_options (or _with_flags), and we could either
require two arguments (each being a symbol option as described below
or SCM_UNDEFINED) or have it take a list containing an arbitrary
number of symbol options to allow us to extend its behavior as
necessary. I didn't get a strong sense of established precedent
looking at Guile's C API; I'm kind of leaning towards the list
approach right now.
> > Actually, I just remembered a fairly elegant approach that seems to be
> > used in other parts of the Guile API -- these optional arguments could
> > be specified as symbols: 'unlock-if-unowned and
> > 'unlock-if-owned-by-other, say. Let me know what you'd prefer.
>
> This is still an interesting question, but now for `make-mutex'
> instead of for `unlock-mutex'. Personally I like the symbol approach,
> because (in comparison with a sequence of #t and #f) it will make the
> code easier to understand at the point of the call, and also because
> the #t/#f approach requires remembering the parameter ordering.
Cool -- I'll set up make-mutex for Scheme, and for C as described
above. Let me know if that's not okay.
Regards,
Julian
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, (continued)
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/07
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/07
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/11
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/19
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/19
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/21
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Julian Graham, 2008/02/21
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/24
- Re: srfi-18 requirements,
Julian Graham <=
- Re: srfi-18 requirements, Neil Jerram, 2008/02/24