Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are probably more competent to answer the question than me.
:-) Well thanks for your quick response anyway; it's very helpful.
> I wrote that code when I was pretty inexperienced, and the choice to
> allow for the continuation to be saved was probably more motivated by
> a feeling that I didn't want any limitations on what you could do with
> traps than anything more specific---except that I probably had
> imagined the continuations as a way to resume execution after a
> breakpoint, of course.
Oh yes, I remember now; continuations have not been necessary for
continuing after a breakpoint since this change to call the trap
handlers directly instead of executing a throw:
2001-06-26 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* eval.h, eval.c (scm_call_4): New function.
* eval.c (SCM_APPLY, SCM_CEVAL, ENTER_APPLY): Call trap handlers
directly rather than dispatching to them via scm_ithrow and a lazy
catch.
* eval.c (scm_evaluator_trap_table), eval.h (SCM_ENTER_FRAME_HDLR,
SCM_APPLY_FRAME_HDLR, SCM_EXIT_FRAME_HDLR): Add three new options
for trap handler procedures.
* debug.h (SCM_RESET_DEBUG_MODE): Add checks for trap handler
procedures not being #f.
(I hope I didn't miss anything by making this change ... I think I
checked it with you at the time also.)
> I agree that it seems expensive to create the continuation at every
> trap, and your idea to skip the cheaptraps option and delegate the
> decision whether to create the continuation or not to the lazy handler
> code (I assume) seems good.
Cool, I'll give it a go and see what turns out.
> BTW, your work on the debugger and Emacs interface seems really
> great---thanks!
Thanks again,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
