From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55286 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2017 06:20:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kawa-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: kawa-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 54616 invoked by uid 89); 19 Mar 2017 06:19:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=learning X-HELO: aibo.runbox.com Received: from aibo.runbox.com (HELO aibo.runbox.com) (91.220.196.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 06:19:24 +0000 Received: from [10.9.9.212] (helo=mailfront12.runbox.com) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cpUBV-0002iV-6P; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:19:21 +0100 Received: from 76-9-82-10-rt-broadband-01.broadband.oakhurst.sti.net ([76.9.82.10] helo=localhost.localdomain) by mailfront12.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:757155 ) (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) id 1cpUBP-0006h9-M4; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:19:16 +0100 Subject: Re: Threads and the getResult method To: Sudarshan S Chawathe , kawa@sourceware.org References: <1443.1489881697@vereq.eip10.org> From: Per Bothner Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 06:20:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1443.1489881697@vereq.eip10.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-q1/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On 03/18/2017 05:01 PM, Sudarshan S Chawathe wrote: > I was trying to use threads as outlined in Section 8.6 ("Threads") of > the manual and was unable to call the getResult method as suggested > there until I added a 'public' modifier to that method's definition in > gnu/mapping/RunnableClosure.java. Oops. There seems to have been a lack of testing ... > I submitted a GitLab pull request, even though this change is trivial, > mainly to exercise that functionality. It may be preferable to ignore > it and just make the change directly (assuming it is valid). Generally, I'm as comfortable (or more so) with patches, since I'm more familiar with that workflow, especially when I'm the one submitting changes :-) In this case, since you create a pull request, I'm happy to do it that way - though a ChangeLog entry would be appreciated. (I failed to set up Notification properly from GitLab, so I haven't been getting timely notification of issue and pull question. Sorry about that. Hope it's working now. It's a learning experience ...) -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/