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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8a3e2ce4e6d56336 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-12 08:12:24 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!inmet!not-for-mail From: Tucker Taft Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generic Formal Parameter for a Task Type Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:11:13 -0500 Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Message-ID: <3AACF521.55CB574F@averstar.com> References: <3AA8698B.79E68E1C@worldnet.att.net> <3AA95037.77EFEBFA@averstar.com> <3AA99F09.5A2C39DB@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nebula.burl.averstar.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 984413473 7964 141.199.8.77 (12 Mar 2001 16:11:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Mar 2001 16:11:13 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5643 Date: 2001-03-12T16:11:13+00:00 List-Id: James Rogers wrote: > > Yes, each of these is a possible way to create a system for monitoring > and controlling a set of tasks. > > I like your idea of the abstract limited tagged type containing a > "Task_ID" function. Unfortunately, this still adds a lot of > overhead when all I want to do is monitor and control the creation > of tasks. > > Note that the problem I am trying to solve does not require much > knowledge about the task, only the ability to create an instance, > and the ability to query a task attribute. > > I fully realize the problem can be solved by building an elaborate > scaffold of data and code structure. I was hoping to achieve the > results simply and cleanly. I was hoping to avoid the additional > overhead of code bloat resulting from building tagged types and > associated subprograms. Actually, if you use limited tagged types, the "code bloat" is pretty small (e.g. no automatically generated stream operations), and unless you have a raft of different task types, there really isn't much additional code to write. Wrapping a task in a limited (tagged) record doesn't actually increase the storage for the task in any substantial way, and the additional code is just a short Task_ID function per task type. > > Jim Rogers > Colorado Springs, Colorado USA -- -Tucker Taft stt@avercom.net http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Chief Technology Officer, AverCom Corporation (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA USA (AverCom was formerly the Commercial Division of AverStar: http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)