On 20/12/2007, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
> > On 20/12/2007, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Your interpretation of "suspended" is different from what Squeak means
> >> by it. "Suspended" means: This process cannot be made runnable by either
> >> a process switch or a semaphore signal.
> >>
> > Hmm, how it differs from 'cannot be made runnable until it will be
> > resumed by sending #resume message'?
>
> It is equivalent. In your example the process *could* be made runnable
> (by the semaphore being signaled) so by this definition it wasn't suspended.
>
> > In the current implementation a #resume is not a counterpart of
> > #suspend and we all have to pay consequences.
>
> True. But making them symmetric by changing suspend is not useful. If
> you wanted to make them symmetric you'd have to change resume so that it
> puts the process back on the list it was suspended frm.
>
> > The #resume should be no-op if process was not suspended by previous
> > call of #suspend.
> > But currently, by sending #resume to process which waiting for signal
> > causing it to continue running as if signal raised.
>
> That is a bug and should be fixed.
>
Finally , something. :)
And because of it, i unable to simply do suspend/resume for all
running processes regardless of their current state.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.