On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 03:07:15PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> it appears that the mutex-lock! declaration in types.db is not
> currect.
>
> The second optional argument according to my reading of may be
> either a thread (struct) or #f ; however types.db only expects
> a thread.
You're right, the SRFI-18 docs clearly state that an explicit #f is
also allowed, not just leaving off the argument.
Attached is a patch for this, which I nominate for inclusion in the
stability branch. It's so trivial I didn't bother to add a NEWS
entry; feel free to write one up if you think it's important.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net
>From d92e01b7a8a69e12fdebebfaa3e22b53c6013c22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Bex <peter....@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:12:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix mutex-unlock! type signature (thanks to Joerg
Wittenberger for reporting this bug)
---
types.db | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/types.db b/types.db
index 1d035cf..79ad37c 100644
--- a/types.db
+++ b/types.db
@@ -2298,7 +2298,7 @@
(make-condition-variable (#(procedure #:clean) make-condition-variable
(#!optional *) (struct condition-variable)))
(make-mutex (#(procedure #:clean) make-mutex (#!optional *) (struct mutex)))
(make-thread (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) make-thread ((procedure () . *)
#!optional *) (struct thread)))
-(mutex-lock! (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) mutex-lock! ((struct mutex)
#!optional * (struct thread)) boolean))
+(mutex-unlock! (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) mutex-unlock! ((struct mutex)
#!optional (struct condition-variable) *) undefined))
(mutex-name (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) mutex-name ((struct mutex)) *)
(((struct mutex)) (##sys#slot #(1) '1)))
--
1.8.0.1
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
