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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,18385551e0d37b37
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-29 10:46:35 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!zib-berlin.de!prise.nz.dlr.de!news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada replacements for DOS I/O
Date: 27 Oct 1994 19:04:50 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <38pbmi$4n9@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <44279.cwarwick@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: schonberg.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-10-27T19:04:50-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The failure to do concurrent I/O is certainly not a bug (nothing in the
Ada standard requires, or even implies, that I/O done from one task is
concurrent with the execution of other tasks).

Furthermore, using DOS I/O, such concurrency is very hard to achieve, since
DOS is basically single threaded, and any processing that continued during
I/O would have to promise not to use ANY DOS calls at all explicit or
implicit, not so easy to arrange, and even with this restriction, it is
very difficult to arrange for this kind of concurrent I/O under DOS>

If you need concurrent I/O, put an operating system on your PC (many
choices including OS/2, NT, Solaris, SCO Unix, Linux, BSD386, Lynx,
Nextstep), and then shop for a compiler that definitely supports the
concurrency that you need.

You burned yourself on this one by making a totally unwarranted assumption!