From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: task synchronization and activation
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:25:25 +0100
Date: 2005-02-21T20:25:25+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1ckxv0ixs631k$.8u92o0bw2sda.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccekfc1fk0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com
On 19 Feb 2005 15:05:19 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
> So my answer to Evangelista Sami's question is, "There is no good reason
> for this design." At least, I can't think of one. This extra
> synchronization is just a waste of time, as far as I can tell.
>
> One possibility is that the original designers were thinking about the
> fact that exceptions that occur before the "begin" can't be handled.
> But I don't see why that makes any real difference.
Maybe initially they wished not to have 9.2(7):
"An entry of a task can be called before the task has been activated."
Later on they added it, but forgot to remove the limitation...
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-21 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-19 15:11 task synchronization and activation Evangelista Sami
2005-02-19 16:11 ` Martin Krischik
2005-02-19 18:11 ` Ed Falis
2005-02-19 20:05 ` Robert A Duff
2005-02-20 10:47 ` Martin Krischik
2005-02-21 19:25 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2005-02-21 8:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2005-02-21 21:55 ` Robert A Duff
2005-02-22 0:01 ` Randy Brukardt
2005-02-22 7:17 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2005-02-23 2:24 ` Robert A Duff
2005-02-23 7:58 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox