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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6516065ab7b5a533
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: Stopping a task running a long simulation
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <1f3de7cf-9bc0-481c-8019-ce053b5fdfe3@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <f16d58ea-6ff2-44fd-85e1-fd482c2bf3e4@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
	<e4b75f1d-b0a7-4067-8433-dbe74add709f@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.62.183.49
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1268359418 2201 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2010 02:03:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:03:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.62.183.49;
	posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit/533.1
	(KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/5.0.321.0 Safari/533.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9537
Date: 2010-03-11T18:03:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> However, I'd be surprised by the behavior if you abort the task but
> Compute keeps using CPU for any length of time.

Yes, that would be a bit counter-intuitive (since the call to Compute
is part of the task).
What happens is that the abort is in the main window's Destroy method,
which occurs after its closing, so I guess it is just waiting at the
abort statement. And if I understand well, a delay 0.0 in the main
Compute loop would facilitate the aborting (I'll experiment it).
Anyway, in the end I'll use the more deterministic way discussed
elsewhere.
Thanks
Gautier