On 12/20/2010 11:06 AM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
On 12/18/2010 08:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Aha, I could now reproduce what you meant, but it's not a bug. The problem is
that if you're already in the #ensure: block, or in the #critical: block,
#terminate will be able to unwind it. So, #ensure: is fundamentally
incompatible with #terminate (at least as it is implemented now). I have to
think more about it.
I assume it is the same for sending any message? I have moved from terminate
to send a simple Notification/Exception. But as it is mostly implemented the
same way, I face the same issue?
I think ProcessBeingTerminated is different, but it has the problem that
it is more akin to #ifCurtailed: than to #ensure:.
It would be interesting to see what other dialects do. But it is better
to think of #terminate as a very bad idea in general :) and rethink
processes to implement *interruption* rather than termination.
Another possibility in your case is to implement the processes
collection using a wrapper, so that iteration will filter out processes
that have terminated.
I'm also thinking of moving #queueInterrupt: to a primitive or something
like that so that it's not preemptable/interruptible. This means that
instead of removing itself from the collection, a terminating process
could *atomically* ask another process to do the removal.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
