Re: RFC: Safe Signals

>>>>> "UG" == Uri Guttman <[email protected]> writes:

UG> it it not about how hard it is to implement, but how hard it is to hide
UG> implementation details from the language specs. in this case it is very
UG> hard. signals are messy.

I'm sorry, please expound on this. I can't see where you have to get
into the details. 

Isn't it enough to state that signals will only be delivered at 

(pick one or more)

	statement boundary
	expression boundary
	checkpoint boundary
	thread switch
	context switch
	io event
	calls to the yield operator

There are even more possiblities. None of which requires any mention
of how the internals are implemented.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the %SIG semantics that makes
it inherently unsafe. If there is please tell me why this isn't a
callback scheme which you feel is safe.

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel					     Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[email protected]				               +1-718-236-0183