Re: Problem with gnustep-base-1.6.0 Testing Output

[Alexander Malmberg]

Chris Beaham wrote:
[snip]
> I find this situation quite frustrating to be honest.  Everyone is
> currently discussing "Re: Why is GNUstep less successful than GTK and
> Qt??", but how is someone new to GNUstep every going to even get
> anywhere/started when the actual examples/tests are flawed and not
> documented?

Given that the stuff in Testing/ is obsolete and/or broken, and that
this is confusing users, I suggest that we remove Testing/ completely
from -base (possibly adding them in dev-apps/test/obsolete-tests/ or
something instead).

>  IMHO the basics should be exact, stable, and documented
> before the more intellectual discussions can be started.  I'm a
> believer and don't need any convincing, however I'm sure that a lot of
> people would have given up long before digging into the code itself,
> even if it is very short and readable.
> 
> I have attached a suggest fix to diningPhilosophers.m that my colleague
> did; it adds another lock around the locking of the forks.  There may
> be a better way to implement this, but atleast this gets it running.

IIRC, the by-the-book solution to the dining philosophers problem is to
have one (and only one) of the "philosophers" grab the forks in the
opposite order (in this case first right, then left).

- Alexander Malmberg