non-local exits are icky Tom Lord (23 Dec 2003 23:07 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Michael Sperber (26 Dec 2003 15:41 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Tom Lord (26 Dec 2003 18:14 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Michael Sperber (26 Dec 2003 18:30 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Tom Lord (26 Dec 2003 19:19 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Michael Sperber (27 Dec 2003 16:16 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Tom Lord (27 Dec 2003 18:38 UTC)
Re: non-local exits are icky Michael Sperber (27 Dec 2003 18:43 UTC)

Re: non-local exits are icky Michael Sperber 26 Dec 2003 18:30 UTC

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

Tom> The SRFI is slightly unclear but I understand the section "Signalling
Tom> errors from external code" to mean that a call to something like
Tom> SCHEME_ARGUMENT_TYPE_ERROR does not return to its caller, but rather
Tom> directly to Scheme.

Tom> I gather also that SCHEME_CALL may result in a non-local exit past the
Tom> caller.

Correct.

Tom> Since the mechanism of these non-local exits is not specified and can
Tom> not be modified by C code, the FFI contains no provision for them to
Tom> perform unwind protection --- that's a serious omission.

But SCHEME_CALL takes you back to Scheme, where you can use
DYNAMIC-WIND.

I think I misunderstand your point.

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