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,af960bc705aaf51b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 14:01:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Complexity of protected objects Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:01:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0202251401.27b95bb0@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014674474 6387 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2002 22:01:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 22:01:14 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20401 Date: 2002-02-25T22:01:14+00:00 List-Id: "tony gair" wrote in message news:... > J Barnes recommends that protected objects be as small as possible, so > being a little > bloody minded I want to see what the limits are for protected objects , I've generally found that to be good advice. In particular, my PO's always seem to end up just being specialized semaphores or locks, no matter how grandiose I start out planning to make them. Things just work a lot better that way. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html