Re: 1.6.0 and guardians

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 7 Sep 2001, Michael Livshin wrote:

> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I don't see the need for such a functionality, but given there is some
> > sense in it (in interactive development), the possibility to provide
> > 'guarded?' and 'unguard' functions seems to be a better solution, since it
> > allows to achieve the same goals on an per-object base.  Further, it
> > does not lead to 'destroyed' guardian objects hanging around.
> 
> do closed file ports bother you similarly?

They are a potential source for errors, yes.  And destroyed guardians are
as well.  We can't get around closed file ports because of R5RS, but IMO
destroyed guardians are something we can avoid.

But, again, why do you prefer the destruction of a guardian over using
'guarded?' and 'unguard' functions to achieve the same goals on an
per-object base?  In some previous mail you said this wouldn't do the
trick.  Why not?

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann