|From:||Panicz Maciej Godek|
|Subject:||Re: Exceptions that pass continuations|
|Date:||Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:52:30 +0200|
() Panicz Maciej Godek <address@hidden>
() Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:39:55 +0200
Maybe i'm missing something about this particular situation, but i
and the whole thing can be used as follows
(let ((resources '()))
(supply (((release-resource r)
(set! r (cons r resources))))
(let ((r (allocate-resource)))
(demand 'release-resource r)
(for-each release-resource resources))
(of course, this makes little sense if the
resource is released within the same
procedure it is allocated, but if the release
cannot be performed locally, it seems the
I wonder whether this design pattern has ever
been used before, or if there are any potential
flaws with its application.
think generally, the open-use-close pattern in the presence of gc is
best handled by SMOBS and guardians. The resource is "opened" on SMOB
construction, used for some time and then either explicitly "closed"
(and forgotten) or forgotten. The guardian notes the state (still
open, already closed) of its objects and closes the ones that need it.
In this case, are OpenGL "lights" not amenable to wrapping as a SMOB?
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|