Am Dienstag, den 19.08.2008, 13:32 +0200 schrieb Tobia Conforto: > Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > > Since both designs appear useful to me (I forgot about the details > > of the 3rd), I'd rather support all of them for the user to choose > > appropriately. > > I agree that in your case half-shared parameters (which are thread- > local only when parameterize'd) are by far the easiest solution, but > can't you just implement them on top of Chicken's non-shared > parameters and override make-parameter and parameterize? You could > compile this alternate implementation as a library and load it before > the rest of your code, even publish it as an egg. What's the problem? > > I hope I'm not beating a dead horse ;-)
Not at all. Actually I implemented them for me the way you suggested. A few minutes ago I noticed, that this implementation does not exactly the job I want them to. Dunno yet, why (busy with business demands); it's mostly the same code, which passed the test when patched into chicken core. Maybe that error is due to me not being familiar enough with the chicken environment. Overwriting make-parameter seems to be easy enough. But parameterize is a macro, linking to code, which was compiled with the unmodified parameterize is IMHO bound to create subtile bugs. But before I continue, I rather ask again to clear my confusion: are dynamic-wind pre/post-thunks by chicken executed upon each thread switch? Thanks a lot /Jörg _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users