Re: RFC: Safe Signals

>>>>> "CF" == Chaim Frenkel <[email protected]> writes:

  CF> Please explain how any of this will make signals safer?  Safer
  CF> signals is a core issue. Not a language issue. Whatever mechanism
  CF> you select it will not make signals safer.

one, the ability to support safe signals is a language issue. the
implementation of them is an internals issue. we are specifying safe
signals will be in the Perl language.

second, since we have to synchronize signal delivery with perl op code
dispatch, the code has to be able to determine how they want signals
delivered. this again is a language issue as the different delivery
mechanisms affect the design of the program. 

third, supporting safe signals in main line code, threads and event
loops requires a common language level set of semantics. my rfc was
proposing such semantics.

  CF> This is appropriate here in -language(-flow) if you want to change the
  CF> user level interface. Otherwise, it belongs in -core.

the implementation belongs in internals as it will be when that phase
get more serious.

  CF> Perhaps this RFC should simply be renamed. "New singal handling
  CF> metaphor" or whatever.

i disagree. there is no need to change it as it reflects my language
goals and hints at implementation ideas.

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ---------  [email protected]  ----------  http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page  -----------  http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net  ----------  http://www.northernlight.com