> As previously discussed, I think it's better for the core behavior to > be defined - i.e. by signaling some kind of error - than undefined as > it is now. > > I suggest we introduce 'locking-abandoned-mutex-error as a new throw > key, and fat_mutex_lock() can throw that. That's then trivial for the > SRFI-18 API to catch and reraise as a SRFI-34/35 exception. > > OK?
Works for me. I'll try to have something to you this weekend. Regards, Julian
