[Larceny-users] on porting to larceny

[William D Clinger]

Peter Keller wrote:

> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/errno.html
>
> If you notice, it says:
>
> "No function in this volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 shall set errno
> to 0."
>
> Just to keep that in mind....

Right.  So, quoting more from that same link, the paradigm is:

    An application that needs to examine the value of errno
    to determine the error should set it to 0 before a function
    call, then inspect it before a subsequent function call.

David Rush wrote:
> Basically, I hate seeing Larceny, which I use because it is *not*
> dependent on a C compiler, coupling it's semantics to one of the more
> annoying C lossages.

I don't think we're coupling Larceny's semantics to the
lossage; we're just trying to maintain the coupling to
that semantics for C code that is called via Larceny's
FFI.

I agree that it would make more sense to maintain one
errno per thread.  That will be something for us to
think about if and when we implement Grand Larceny
and/or SRFI 18 and/or 21.

Will