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: a07f3367d7,385c146dd3112519
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Private or public task ?
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <38a0a3f9-b4a0-48f3-98c9-63b03fe03aca@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <a35584dd-8693-484d-918d-758940dccfe8@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<hki3p7$bas$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.60
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265406830 7294 127.0.0.1 (5 Feb 2010 21:53:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.60;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8922
Date: 2010-02-05T13:53:50-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi Jeffrey, nice to meet you again,

On 5 f=E9v, 22:38, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org>
wrote:
> Technically this is a bounded error: Ada.Text_IO.Put* operations are pote=
ntially
> blocking, and should not be called from a protected operation.
I did not ever suspected such a requirement. Transitive blocking is
not allowed ?

So, if blocking operation are not allowed from a protected type,
clients of a given operation have to know it weither or not it's
potentially blocking, and so, this fact must be stated in public part
of specifications, so then, the protected and tasked aspect of a
method must be stated in specifications and I suppose it's not a good
idea to make it private.

Wrong or right assumptions ?

> This should not happen. Did you actually experience this?
No, I did not experience it, this was just my imagination : I knew a
task may completes at its own discretion. Thus if may possibly
completes too much soon if its completion condition is not well
designed.

I will have to check the RM, but I'm pretty sure a completed task
cannot handle any request any more (at least, this seems to be a
reasonable assumption to me, but I will still have to check...).