This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxx> writes: > The proposed SRFI works fine with threads, as long as those > threads do not require interrupting the C code at arbitrary > points. That's not threads. See jimb's post from a while back. Look, the problem here is easy: 1) Your SRFI demonstrably loses on certain kinds of implementations; 2) There is a minor change which will make it not lose. Why on earth not prefer number (2)???? Thomas