Re: [Sbcl-help] sb-thread programming tutorial?

[Nikodemus S. <tsi...@cc...>]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, David Steuber wrote:

> I've resorted to looking through the source code now.  I'm already
> confused by what I assume are basic things like (in-package
> "SB!THREAD") instead of (in-package "SB-THREAD") and not being able
> to find an associated (make-package "SB!THREAD").

The "!" vs. "-" is a bootstrapping mechnism to keep packages being built
separate from host packages -- towards the end of a build the "SB!FOO" is
renamed to "SB-FOO".

Similar explanations exist for various other mysterious beasts in the
sources: if something looks almost but not quite like the name of a
standard operator, then more likely then not it's part of the
bootstrapping machinery and unless you're wading in hip-deep hacking on
sbcl you can pretend it's the standard operator.

> Do macros even take documentation strings?  The CLHS mentions
> compiler-macro as a type, but I don't think that is the same thing.
>
> * (documentation 'sb-thread:with-mutex 'function)

From the CLHS pages:

 http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/m_defmac.htm#defmacro

  "defmacro name lambda-list [[declaration* | documentation]] form*"

  So, yes. Macros take docstrings.


 http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_docume.htm

  "The nature of the documentation string returned depends on the
   doc-type, as follows:"

   ...

  "function

    If x is a function name, returns the documentation string of the
    function, macro, or special operator whose name is x."

  So, the documentation of a macro is fetched by

   (documentation macro-name 'function)


> http://www.caddr.com/macho/archives/sbcl-devel/2004-4/3337.html

I'm under the impression that 2.4 kernels in general have threading
problems, and fixing them is a lower priority eg. threadsafetyfing
sbcl internals, and that for serious sb-thread use 2.6 kernels are
recommended, but dunno.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus