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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,13c68a067434682
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Larry Coon <larry@assist.org>
Subject: Re: Task question
Date: 1997/10/13
Message-ID: <34425F8E.3104@assist.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 280182688
References: <3439D647.7C43@home.com> <EHp4K0.6MF@world.std.com>
Organization: University of California
Reply-To: larry@assist.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert A Duff wrote:

[your reply rearranged slightly]

> If you willing to have the extra entry, then do this:
>           accept done;
>           exit;
> So the exit statement comes *after* the accept statement, not inside
> it.

Yes, I figured it out myself using a flag, but switched
to this solution when others suggested it....
 
> When a terminate alternative is selected, the task will finalize all its
> local variables before actually becoming terminated.  So you can put the
> "other stuff" in a Finalize procedure, and have it executed that way.
> If the "other stuff" needs access to local data inside the task, you can
> put that data inside the Limited_Controlled object, or you can get at it
> via an access discriminant.
 
...but since this is a learning experience for me (I've
never worked with tasks before), I'll be sure to check
out these suggestions -- thanks.

Larry Coon
University of California
larry@assist.org  <= Note new address
and lmcoon@home.com