From: Nathan F. <fr...@gm...> - 2011-08-22 13:51:30
|
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Nikodemus Siivola <de...@us...> wrote: > non-consing NANOSLEEP > > ...and hence SLEEP as well. > > @@ -976,10 +976,9 @@ corresponds to NAME, or NIL if there is none." > (rem-nsec (slot rem 'tv-nsec))) > (when (or (> secs rem-sec) > (and (= secs rem-sec) (>= nsecs rem-nsec))) > - (setf secs rem-sec > - nsecs rem-nsec) > t))) > - do (rotatef req rem)))) > + do (setf (slot req 'tv-sec) (slot rem 'tv-sec) > + (slot req 'tv-nsec) (slot rem 'tv-nsec))))) This doesn't have the same semantics as the ROTATEF did, no? Or is the change compensated by the removal of SETF'ing SECS and NSECS? -Nathan |