Subject: Re: signal handler context...
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/24/2002 15:11:09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:02:26PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> I disagree with the part after, "might as well." Knowing the routine needs
> to know if it was called in a signal handler does not mean that you
> shouldn't call it from a signal handler, just that you need to tell it if
> you are in a signal handler.
> If you're writing a signal handler, you should know that there are fewer
> things you can do in it, so telling library functions that they are in a
> signal handler shouldn't be a surprise. :-)
In the general case, I agree. In this specific case, I understood
the point to be that the application programmer might not be clued
enough to do things right, and Stephane was trying to save him from
shooting himself in the foot.
(This is not to say that I think there's a way to do that, just that
I'm not sure this is much of a compromise, and it'd maybe be better
to come at the problem from a different angle.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----