mirror/guile
mirror/guile
1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-05-20 03:30:27 +02:00
Code Activity

Minor editing in api-scheduling.texi

Browse source 
* doc/ref/api-scheduling.texi: Fix a couple editing mistakes.
This commit is contained in:
Andy Wingo 2016-11-06 18:29:05 +01:00
parent 16fe02aa15
commit 2c0c6414bb
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
doc/ref/api-scheduling.texi
View file

@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ But if you arrange to unlock the mutex when leaving a dynamic extent via
via a continuation invocation? Surely re-entering the dynamic extent
without the lock is a bad idea, so there are two options on the table:
either prevent re-entry via @code{with-continuation-barrier} or similar,
or reacquiring the lock in the entry thunk of a @code{dynamic-wind}.
or reacquire the lock in the entry thunk of a @code{dynamic-wind}.
You might think that because you don't use continuations, that you don't
have to think about this, and you might be right. If you control the
@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ and like standard mutexes can only be unlocked by the owner thread.
Finally, calling @code{make-mutex} with the symbol
@code{allow-external-unlock} creates an unowned mutex. An unowned mutex
is like a standard mutex, except that it can be unlocked by any thread.
A corrolary of this behavior is that a thread's attempt to lock a mutex
A corollary of this behavior is that a thread's attempt to lock a mutex
that it already owns will block instead of signalling an error, as it
could be that some other thread unlocks the mutex, allowing the owner
thread to proceed. This kind of mutex is a bit strange and is here for