I believe I understand now, and I think the answer is that with-thread-runner should accept an optional static timeout. When this timeout happens, all threads in the runner are forced to exit on a timeout exception. I do not see a use case for non-static timeouts.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 2:06 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < [email protected]> wrote: > Am Mo., 14. Nov. 2022 um 20:01 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:16 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 1. John, you suggested adding an optional timeout parameter to > >> `with-thread-runner'. It may be better to add an optional thunk > >> argument that is called when the thread runner procedure returns. The > >> thunk is supposed to return a timeout. > > > > > > I don't understand this at all. First of all, I don't know what you > mean by a thread-runner procedure. There is the procedure > `with-thread-runner`, which returns when its threads have terminated > normally or abnormally. It passes a thread-runner object (a container for > threads) to its body thunk, whose purpose is to start threads and register > them with the thread-runner object. So with-thread-runner actually needs > to wait until its registered threads terminate *and* the body thunk (which > runs in the same thread as with-thread-runner) has returned. > > I meant the procedure PROC that is passed to `with-thread-runner`: > > (with-thread-runner PROC) where PROC is something like (lambda (t-r-o) > ...). > > When it returns, the threads that are still running need to be waited > for. When we add a timeout parameter, shall it be fixed at the > beginning or dynamically determined? In the latter case, a possible > signature of with-thread-runner could be > > (with-thread-runner PROC THUNK-RETURNING-TIMEOUT) > > > > >> > >> 2. If a timeout happens, what should be the return values for the > >> threads that didn't finish in time? Or no particular return value and > >> let the following thread-join! with a timeout of 0 detect it? > > > > > > They should be terminated with a timeout exception. No thread-join is > needed, because that's what thread-runners do. > > > >> >
