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,fba93c19bb4e7dbd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-22 05:07:19 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: Endless loop by dispatching
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:11:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3daqhvk2506mngn818ihqlsbl0ss6pd896@4ax.com>
References: <3F188FDA.3000202@attbi.com>
 <Z22Sa.82038$sY2.36618@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
 <3F18DB9D.5020205@attbi.com> <818nhv0hrmlheu622t82574blao7bqr0tt@4ax.com>
 <3F1BBB9B.2070800@attbi.com> <rhhnhv0qnlolovekjab7rgrpuq36vgf55k@4ax.com>
 <3F1C360E.8010208@attbi.com> <25pphvct4bsdc5ag0rrnftoitlqgombm25@4ax.com>
 <slrnbhq4u8.oa.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1058875638 15335847 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40629
Date: 2003-07-22T14:11:24+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC), Lutz Donnerhacke
<lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote:

>* Dmitry A Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:51:34 GMT, "Robert I. Eachus"
>>>Initialize (and for that matter Ada.Finalization) is just a convenient
>>>scapegoat to use in examples.  The problems can occur with any
>>>predefined operations of a tagged type.
>> 
>> Yes, but for Initialize/Finalize the consequences are usually
>> catastrophic. This is why I would prefer either a special syntax (C++
>> way), or a more general approach with overriding by extension. Which
>> can be later well re-used:
>> 
>> 1. for user-defined aggregates, if they come;
>> 2. for overriding entry points of tagged tasks, if ...;
>> 3. for overriding operations of tagged protected objects, if ...;
>
>How about a fixing rule, which applies at the private syntax element?

Which rule do you mean?

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de