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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada advocacy
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:15:49 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1f1l67cgxbd6i.zw6k03abfxd$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: 
 <19595886.4450.1332248078686.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfy7>
 <2012032020582259520-rblove@airmailnet> <jkc59a$hs5$2@speranza.aioe.org>
 <12ee9bc5-3bdf-4ac0-b805-5f10b3859ff4@googlegroups.com>
 <vhcvr8d4kq6ribdqeeb0b857ei5aa5luiv@4ax.com>
 <6c58fae4-6c34-4d7a-ab71-e857e55897c0@x6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
 <wccvc5b49yc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.w2g9br0kule2fv@cardamome>
 <246849b7-7a53-48a2-8f64-ff6dfb2086ce@googlegroups.com>
 <521dbbbb$0$9520$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1spiuuuxfwqq4$.46v46qs98684.dlg@40tude.net>
 <521de20d$0$9507$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.w2jcso19ule2fv@cardamome> <1ko98ye6q8bzv.134llfoupp81w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.w2k10qwoule2fv@cardamome>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: vRnt2AWmw7ZRya91cSDecw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Original-Bytes: 2643
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183218
Date: 2013-08-29T21:15:49+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:47:04 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:25:59 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> 
>> 1. preemptive or not?
> No. Otherwise just use task.

I rather meant things like asynchronous system traps and task mailboxes.
I.e. when the task gets interrupted to perform some actions and then
continues. I believe an implementation would require distributed overhead
and rather poor latencies.

>> 3. how much of the context where given execution path is nested would be
>> accessible?
> Explicitly bounded.

Visibility of the context would meant additional overhead for switching
co-routines.
 
> There are ways to workaround it with actual Ada, but that's not handy.

Note really. It is impossible to convert callbacks into sequential code
without co-routines.
  
> There is the state machine which requires to flatten the conditional  
> structures in a case statement, and that does not help readability and  
> maintenance; sometime it comes as the most natural way to express things,  
> but not always.

Yes, I don't consider this horror as a workaround.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de