On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 07:14:56PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > 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.
Git malfunctioned (or more likely, my brain did). Here's another try. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net
>From e9d3e343262c2623f14e7e5b6e652e54b961003b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Bex <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:41:43 +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..3424af0 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-lock! (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) mutex-lock! ((struct mutex) #!optional * (or boolean (struct thread))) boolean)) (mutex-name (#(procedure #:clean #:enforce) mutex-name ((struct mutex)) *) (((struct mutex)) (##sys#slot #(1) '1))) -- 1.8.0.1
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
