Greg, I'm writing CL-STM, and I was wondering if we could change `condition-wait' to take the lock as an optional argument? At the moment, I'm acquiring a dummy lock, and then using `condition-wait' on it. What do you think? Hoan
On 13 Jun 2006, at 23:01, Hoan Ton-That wrote:
I'm writing CL-STM, and I was wondering if we could change `condition-wait' to take the lock as an optional argument? At the moment, I'm acquiring a dummy lock, and then using `condition-wait' on it. What do you think?
This sounds like a reasonable request. Let me get your usage correct: you want to wait on a condition variable, but the actions you carry out don't have any shared state, and therefore don't require a lock to be used? I'll mull it over a bit longer to see if I can think of any issues (although none come to mind immediately), and I'll release 0.0.2, since there have also been some other changes (especially regarding support for ABCL).
Hey Greg,
This sounds like a reasonable request. Let me get your usage correct: you want to wait on a condition variable, but the actions you carry out don't have any shared state, and therefore don't require a lock to be used?
Thats exactly right. I could be misusing condition variables though. I could hack up support for OpenMCL if you'd want. I'm not sure that CMUCL and SBCL have support for notifying a condition variable without locking and unlocking. OpenMCL does. Hoan
participants (2)
-
Greg Pfeil -
Hoan Ton-That