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-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:56:02 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <1lna859viel52sdak5c16qglmeqlvt4p4e@4ax.com>
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <cb0dbf43-bfdf-43b3-b9e6-3a5916462da8@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
  <81a101a3-b46e-4268-973c-356c6119ee2b@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
  <2785ff1e-661b-41ce-95a8-cef2862e2907@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
  <6239906b-e952-4bf9-8a11-b7faf942bdde@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
  <Xns9C665974FB608pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
 <270bf4df-4d0b-4621-9005-80ef8ab51634@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RXEkuaSUwmKe0XIGFYSK7A.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0BUI85BP5N7FzOSHojnC2smDeec=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7775
Date: 2009-08-14T13:56:02+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak
<see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 13 Sie, 14:47, "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Note: Some time ago I have written an article on how a language-based
>support for basic threading features could possibly look like in C++:
>
>http://www.inspirel.com/articles/Possible_Syntax_For_Cpp_Threads.html
>
>I still think that what was standardized will serve the community
>better.

As I read that I was reminded of the PAR construct, and PRI PAR etc
then I got to the section "Feasibility and similar existing solutions"
where you explicitly mention occam2. Cool.