[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Purpose of SRFI 39

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 39 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 39 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Marc Feeley wrote:

I agree that the API of parameters is not abstract, and that this
could be improved with separate procedures (or syntax) for creation,
mutation, reading and binding of dynamic variables.  I did not propose
this because of the convergence by many implementations to the
"parameters" API and I wanted to place minimal burden on
implementors/users of this API.  Moreover, the main point of SRFI 39
is to propose the "right" semantics for dynamic binding in the
presence of threads.

I have to agree with Mr.Preprocessor, here. A "fresh" API would
make it much easier for implementors and users, alike.

One question: Gambit already has `dynamic-ref', etc. Wouldn't it make
sense to use that (or something based on it's syntax) instead of parameters?
The only implementations I know that provide this are Gambit (where
I don't know how this interacts with threads) and SLIB (which doesn't
have threads).

This looks like a possible alternative that could in fact please