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: 103376,80b3e504140e89fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-21 08:29:17 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3D134669.5070000@san.rr.com>
From: Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal
References: <uwuswy0qr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D0FAC67.A4861809@san.rr.com>
 <uu1nzw8n3.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D10B6B1.AFE9D4E8@san.rr.com>
 <uznxrun8p.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D10E046.E604231D@san.rr.com>
 <uadpqujxc.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3D1204B5.4620F160@san.rr.com>
 <3D1215A8.719D39C5@nbi.dk> <u1yb1u3ek.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <3D123852.1040508@san.rr.com> <3D1289D2.9090107@telepath.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:29:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1024673356 66.75.151.160 (Fri,
 21 Jun 2002 08:29:16 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:29:16 PDT
Organization: RoadRunner - West
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26562
Date: 2002-06-21T15:29:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> I think "forbid simultaneous access" is fine. But that's not what 
>> you're doing. You're doing "screw the user if there's simultaneous 
>> access." Kind of the way C "forbids" indexing off the end of an array. 
>> ;-)
> 
> 
> I'm probably missing something here. How is this worse than the current 
> situation with Ada.Text_IO?

If I have a text editor program and a compiler,  I can save the source from 
my editor window (using Text_IO to write it) and then compile it with the 
compiler (using Text_IO to read it). This works like the user expects.

What the user doesn't expect is to run two copies of the text editor, change 
the configuration in one, and have that configuration disappear simply 
because they closed the other window later.