On Monday, June 8, 2015, Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> wrote:
> Saying "don't rely on it, it's not documented" in reference to an > essential service is basically saying "our system is an unfinished > toy, we're sorry you decided to use it". > > That is basically true of the thread system at least. > Yes, that's fair. > I've reverted the change, and added a WITH-THREAD-MUTEX-LOCK that is > just a dynamic-wind of LOCK-THREAD-MUTEX/UNLOCK-THREAD-MUTEX, which > already rejected recursion. > > (The revert could conceivably be cherry-picked into the release-9.2 > branch for a 9.2.1 release.) > Thanks. I'm actually running tip-of-tree, so this is just fine for me. > I still strongly advise designing your locks to avoid recursion: in > almost all cases it will make reasoning about and understanding your > program easier; in the few cases that remain you probably need other > semantics anyway. > I still intend to look over the code to see what I can do cleanly.
_______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list MIT-Scheme-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
