SharedQueue bug in #nextOrNilSuchThat

Test for SharedQueue >> nextOrNilSuchThat fails due to incorrect
implementation of #nextOrNilSuchThat - I at least assume the semantics
should be the same as for SharedQueue2 and satisfy the test (i.e. pick one
item, leave the rest be).

I propose this correction to #nextOrNilSuchThat (the original one skipped
AND DISCARDED all items before the item found):

nextOrNilSuchThat: aBlock
        "Answer the next object that satisfies aBlock, skipping any intermediate
objects.
        If no object has been sent, answer <nil> and leave me intact.
        NOTA BENE:  aBlock MUST NOT contain a non-local return (^)."

        ^accessProtect critical: [
                | value readPos |
                value := nil.
                readPos := readPosition.
                [ readPos < writePosition and: [ value isNil ] ] whileTrue: [
                        value := contentsArray at: readPos.
                        readPos := readPos + 1.
                        (aBlock value: value)
                                ifFalse: [ value := nil ]
                                ifTrue: [
                                        readSynch waitIfLocked: [ ^nil ]. "We found the value, but someone else
booked it."
                                        *readPos-1 to: readPosition+1 by: -1 do: [ :j | contentsArray at: j
put: (contentsArray at: j-1) ].
                                        contentsArray at: readPosition put: nil.
                                        readPosition := readPosition+1 *] ].
                value ].


Is this the right way to propose changes and fixes? Thanks
Cheers,
Jaromir

Tested at Squeak6.0alpha-20182-64bit.image



--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html

On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 11:17:50AM -0600, Jaromir wrote:
Hi Jaromir,

Yes it is perfectly fine to post suggestions to the list like this,
especially if you are asking for discussion of ideas like this.

Please also read about the contribution process here:

  https://squeak.org/development_process/

If you have a specific change or improvement to contribute, it is good
to publish your change to the inbox, and then discuss it here on the
list also.

Dave

Perfect, thanks, Dave. I'll try the Inbox then to see how it works.
Jaromir



--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html