[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] mutex-unlock! should allowed #f as timeout according to srfi
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] mutex-unlock! should allowed #f as timeout according to srfi-18 |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:53:59 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> writes:
> According to srfi-18:
>
> ---------------------cut----------------------
> Time objects and timeouts
>
> ......
>
> a time object represents an absolute point in time
> an exact or inexact real number represents a relative time in seconds
> from the moment the primitive was called
> #f means that there is no timeout
> ---------------------end----------------------
>
> Attached the patch to fix such a situation:
> ==========
> scheme@(guile-user)> (mutex-unlock! m condv #f)
> ERROR: In procedure unlock-mutex:
> ERROR: Wrong type (expecting real number): #f
> ==========
>
> And I do know that `mutex-unlock!' uses timeout as the last optional
> argument, usually users won't pass timeout when they don't need it.
> But I do think it's necessary to stick to the standard as possible as we
> can.
Agreed, good catch!
> diff --git a/libguile/threads.c b/libguile/threads.c
> index 04897e3..3e9911d 100644
> --- a/libguile/threads.c
> +++ b/libguile/threads.c
> @@ -1692,7 +1692,7 @@ SCM_DEFINE (scm_unlock_mutex_timed, "unlock-mutex", 1,
> 2, 0,
> scm_t_timespec cwaittime, *waittime = NULL;
>
> SCM_VALIDATE_MUTEX (1, mx);
> - if (! (SCM_UNBNDP (cond)))
> + if (! (SCM_UNBNDP (cond)) && ! scm_is_false (timeout))
> {
> SCM_VALIDATE_CONDVAR (2, cond);
This isn't quite right. If 'timeout' is false, then you fail to
validate 'cond'. Anyway, I pushed a similar patch to stable-2.0.
Thanks,
Mark