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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Latest /= Greatest (was: Asynchronous Transfer of Control)
Date: 1996/10/17
Message-ID: <1996Oct17.130430.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190222369
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com>
 <DzF1Fo.CJs.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <DzFAMr.6DG@world.std.com>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 845571903/2363
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <DzFAMr.6DG@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes:

> On Windows 95, the only way I can see to implement preemptive abort/ATC
> is for the compiler to insert polling code all over the program (maybe
> at every call, and at every backward jump?).  If true, this is horrible
> -- operating systems of decades ago had proper support for this sort of
> thing, but the latest and greatest doesn't.

Um, I don't think most Ada folk universally subscribe to the theory that:

		<latest> = <greatest>

There is no reason to suspect that the bulk of operating systems are
getting better and better.  Consider that they are being sold to an
ever-widening circle of less-experienced consumers (including businesses).

Larry Kilgallen