[M3devel] Fwd: Fork bug

Hendrik Boom hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
Fri Jul 11 06:36:29 CEST 2014

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39:41PM +0000, Daniel Alejandro Benavides Diaz wrote:
> Hi all:
> We can see this kind of reasoning in the The C++ Programming Language report quote in SPWM3, as it reads like "C++ has a lot of operators and while be explained where and if needed".
> This is not reasonable for my, please don't make me attempt return Dragisha :)
> Thanks in advance
> De: Dragiša Durić [mailto:dragisha at m3w.org]
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 09 de Julio de 2014 12:05 a.m.
> Para: rodney.m.bates at acm.org
> CC: m3devel
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] Fwd: Fork bug
> We can implement specific MUTEX subclass with this behavior and use it where its use can be rationalised and where it is needed/correct-thing-to-do.
> This way you get specific behavior without (in eyes of most people) breaking up with what has become normal and expected behavior of MUTEXes.
> On 08 Jul 2014, at 21:20, Rodney M. Bates <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop<mailto:rodney_bates at lcwb.coop>> wrote:
> While we are working on MUTEX, I would like to propose making them
> what I believe is meant by a recursive mutex, that is, one thread
> can lock multiple times, the mutex being released only when the number
> of unlocks catches up with the number of locks.

Recursive reentry into a semaphore might just possibly indicate a 
serious bug in the logic of one's program.  It is not the purpose of 
Modula 3 to paper over the effects of bad programming, however 
convenient it seems to be.

Perhaps if you came up with useful, convenient, and elegant proof rules 
for your desired behaviour, you might convince me otherwise.

-- hendrik

More information about the M3devel mailing list