On 2005-10-18 01:05:19 -0600 Richard Frith-Macdonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think the OpenStep specification actually says what -unlock
should do
in the case where a lock can't be unlocked ... so I'd call it a
difference in
the implementation rather than interpretation.
Normally, I'd say we should change the GNUstep implementation to
match that
of MacOS-X, however my feeling in this case is that maybe we
shouldn't. You
have to ask yourself ... why should code be attempting to unlock
something
that it hasn't locked? Generally the unbalanced use of locks
indicates a
severe bug in a program ... so raising an exception when locks are
misused
seems like a better idea than letting it pass. Is the 'better'
behavior of
GNUstep sufficient to outweigh the implementation differewnce from
MacOS-X?
What do other people think?
I wonder where you would get into a situation where you didn't know if
a lock had been applied or not? Apparently that may be the case
here....
Perhaps we could add an -isLocked method to check this?
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
