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

Re: non-local exits are icky

To: Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: non-local exits are icky
From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:41:55 +0100
Cc: srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200312232331.PAA19112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Tom Lord's message of "Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:35 -0800 (PST)")
References: <200312232331.PAA19112@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.090019 (Oort Gnus v0.19) XEmacs/21.5 (celeriac, berkeley-unix)

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes:

Tom> With non-local exits, you'll also need a mechanism for unwind
Tom> protection within C code.

Sure, but that's an implementation issue.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

Follow-Ups:
- Re: non-local exits are icky
  - From: Tom Lord

References:
- non-local exits are icky
  - From: Tom Lord

Prev by Date: Re: GC safety and return values
Next by Date: Re: maybe pika
Previous by thread: non-local exits are icky
Next by thread: Re: non-local exits are icky
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread