From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: closing files by gc Date: 14 Jan 2003 19:24:58 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3251561098248330@naggum.no> References: <43co3c6ck.fsf@beta.franz.com> <41y3h2c3l.fsf@beta.franz.com> <4r8cdcvf.fsf@ccs.neu.edu> <4wul81ydf.fsf@beta.franz.com> Reply-To: http://naggum.no/erik/contact.html Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1042572298 21934 129.240.65.207 (14 Jan 2003 19:24:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jan 2003 19:24:58 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:50493 * Joe Marshall | Let me clarify that, though. The cleanup forms do not necessarily | need to run in a `without-interrupts' context. The ideal case would | be that multitasking continues as usual, but asynchronous interrupts | to the particular stack group (thread) that is cleaning up would be | deferred until the cleanup is complete. I'm making the assumption | that as the author of the cleanup code, I can ensure that it is | error-free and completes in a timely manner. Some of this discussion appears to exhibit some assumptions about what kind of code should be permissible in the cleanup forms of an `unwind-protect´ form, from the implication that not everything would be equally acceptable. Perhaps they should be made explicit? -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.