> hi,

> setjmp and longjmp cause super sad panda misery for me.

> They make it hard to use threads with tinypy, and also cause troubles
> with cpython ctypes... and I can imagine, it'd make it harder to embed
> tinypy in some systems too.

> They are currently used for exception handling, but maybe we can do
> exception handling a different way?

> Maybe we could take some inspiration from python exceptions?
>    http://docs.python.org/c-api/exceptions.html

> cheers,

> Anyway, yes it's possible to remove setjmp/longjmp stuff as long as
> the status of `tp->ex` is checked after each tp_call (or anything else
> that could invoke an exception) and then manually call tp_handle.

> This could be done at the end of tp_step I suppose, and you'd have to
> modify _tp_run to exit gracefully...

> tp_handle could be yanked out too, allowing anybody to write their on handler?

> Regards,
>  - Harry Roberts

> 2009/2/24 illume <ren...@gmail.com>:

> > hi,

> > setjmp and longjmp cause super sad panda misery for me.

> > They make it hard to use threads with tinypy, and also cause troubles
> > with cpython ctypes... and I can imagine, it'd make it harder to embed
> > tinypy in some systems too.

> > They are currently used for exception handling, but maybe we can do
> > exception handling a different way?

> > Maybe we could take some inspiration from python exceptions?
> >    http://docs.python.org/c-api/exceptions.html

> > cheers,

> > setjmp and longjmp cause super sad panda misery for me.

> Hi everyone, I'm new to tinypy, just heard of it on the SWIG mailing
> list, and it sounds completely awesome! (I have always been enamored
> with the Lua VM, but I hate the Lua language, love Python, and have
> always wanted the sandboxing features I have read tinypy has!

> Being a newb, I am inclined to ask this: I read that tinypy is
> stackless -- so why does would it need to use setjmp/longjmp for
> *anything*?