From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-12 15:02:40 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!freenix!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:02:23 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <107m4fv65u18mc0@corp.supernews.com>
References: <u4qrv5hwr.fsf@acm.org> <bRecOT0TxF@VB1162.spb.edu>
 <mailman.224.1081468027.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404090512.15af2908@posting.google.com>
 <c56ib6$5ha$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404091828.6e79bb4e@posting.google.com>
 <c58jfr$2qh7ca$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5ad0dd8a.0404100735.7b2a8317@posting.google.com>
 <c5b6pt$2pcs4d$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7017
Date: 2004-04-12T17:02:23-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:c5b6pt$2pcs4d$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de...
...
> Provided that:
>
> 1) protected object and tasks would be tagged (inheritable from);
> 2) multiple inheritance would be supported;
> 3) entries, procedures and functions would be primitive operations;
> 4) functional notation would be permitted (instead of prefix notation)

See AI-345, which extends the interface mechanism (itself a Ada 200y
proposal) to cover task and protected types. (1) is true if the PT or TT
inherits from one or more interfaces; (2) follows from the definition of
interfaces; (3) is true for calls through interfaces (as opposed to directly
to the PO or TOs); (4) is true for calls through interfaces.

> one could have entries of multiple protected objects and tasks.

I don't see how this follows from (1) to (4), though. Each call is just a
dispatching call to a single operation; there is no implementation
inheritance.

> A call to such entry would start multiple protected actions (one per each
protected
> object parameter) and multiple rendezvous (one per each task object
> parameter). Could we agree that 1-4 is a damn *lot* of work?

Not really. *Interfaces* is a lot of work, but presuming that we're going to
have those anyway, adding protected and task support to them is not a
significant increment.

                 Randy.