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
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7769c087a4d30c0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Conversion and task pointer.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.14.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1120751455.846822.141050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <1xuh1gs97pwwg$.1v4w9ruw1n2x$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1PidncjOa5cWA1DfRVn-1Q@megapath.net>
 <28m5yx3jhzvu$.16u6va8093srl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <auadnUjZq5vQ4U3fRVn-2w@megapath.net>
 <tb8600lfqd2z.1l9etgzsgcls2.dlg@40tude.net>
 <gbCdnXzt_aECJE_fRVn-ug@megapath.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:13:57 +0200
Message-ID: <29tci5buk8ik.12z8wzs6awbnb.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jul 2005 10:12:55 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 94aee810.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=?fZ<<=b2;\lgZnGD9BX_meQ5U85hF6f;djW\KbG]kaMhA@_25la3nbbhbTJVI<f?1h[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`d<=9bOTW=MNn
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12008
Date: 2005-07-12T10:12:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:28:42 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Well, you can't ignore the prefix (it determines whether it is an internal
> or external requeue).

This must be fixed anyway. There is no safe way to statically determine if
a requeue is internal (in Ada 95 it had a quite nasty consequences, like a
program which legality was dependent on whether at run-time a barrier was
open or not.)

For class-wide objects the idea of protected actions should be refined: let
A extend B. Is a protected action on X of A, the same or a different action
on B(X)? What about B'Class(X), A'Class(X)? Further, for multi-methods, let
both tagged arguments resolve to the same type tag, but different objects.
Will it start two actions?

> It certainly doesn't work with the
> "use a procedure like an entry" model, because it would make no sense to
> requeue on a procedure.

Hmm, if a procedure is like an always open entry, then why not to continue
the current protected action while calling the procedure? The action is
completed with return from the procedure.

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