Re: Strings, one last detail.

[bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lord wrote:

>
>    > From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>    > >The lock/unlock pattern can solve it -- not in the general case but in
>    > >a useful way -- and is quite portable.
>
>    > This is true -- but impossible within the context of the current draft of
>    > the SRFI because there is no call to hang the unlock() method on.
>
>I don't understand.  The unlock() should be an explicit part of the
>FFI (when/if r/w-sharing-semantics string extraction is added).

Right.  My original point was that r/w sharing semantics were unsupportable
under the current draft (ie, without an unlock() call) of the SRFI and we
needed to warn application developers of this fact.

					Bear