Re: Dynamic loading progress

[Stefan Monnier]

> Going from the safe to the unsafe direction is easy if it's really
> required, but going the other direction is hard.

You have it backward: it's easy to add a wrapper that catches signals,
but it's *impossible* to "uncatch" a signal that was caught (you can at
best re-throw that signal, which is a close-enough approximation in
many cases, but is still not the same).

> I'd suggest to only implement the safe version for now and only add
> the unsafe version if there's some data that shows it's required.

The only version that is required is the one that lets signals walk up
the stack freely.  I'm not opposed to also providing a "safe" version
that catches signals and turns them into something else, but the other
one is indispensable.


        Stefan