Adam Fedor schrieb: > 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? >
That would add an API that would be kind of hard to emulate on Cocoa in GSCategories (ie. for -baseadd). (Even though I ran into situtations where I thought this would be handy.) Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Bug-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
