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-Thread: 103376,e44790cdcea9da82
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!posts.news.twtelecom.net!nnrp2.twtelecom.net!not-for-mail
From: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <41651D37.4030805@mailinator.com> <c0a9d.3371$4b.445@trndny09>
 <2skt9qF1ljjdtU1@uni-berlin.de> <4165472D.2030704@mailinator.com>
 <416573FA.4010003@mailinator.com> <87k6u2mj08.fsf@insalien.org>
 <4166538E.6090907@mailinator.com>
 <41702af7$0$91003$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
 <417377F7.7050506@mailinator.com>
 <4173f0ed$0$91003$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
 <417409AB.8040702@mailinator.com> <ud5zftpbi.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <sa43c0b5t15.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au> <u8ya3thjg.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <4174BF2F.8050306@mailinator.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with -gnatt
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:52:15 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID: <41752742$0$91006$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
Organization: Time-Warner Telecom
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Oct 2004 14:40:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 978adb4f.news.twtelecom.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=kKV<\RnoKFYY8WlVG;M\0RC_A=>8kQj6]hHXa^^g6TZT1e2KC15Y<YYdYZAA8S:<lP7nS1O7h[SC^
X-Complaints-To: abuse@twtelecom.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5455
Date: 2004-10-19T14:40:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com> wrote in message 
news:4174BF2F.8050306@mailinator.com...
> Matthew Heaney wrote:
>>
>> The Control_Type certainly *will* prevent such mistakes.
>
> I think he refers to *locking* and not *unlocking* which is, BTW, my 
> principal objection too.

We're not talking generalities here.  We're talking about a very specific 
piece of code.  In that piece of code, you "remembered" to write the http 
logging feature as a protected action.  If you can remember to do that, then 
surely you can "remember" to call a semaphore! What's the difference?

My advice is to stop fighting the language...