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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,534dd301375921ac
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr5269424pbc.0.1339744974983;
        Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni52758pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Text_IO.Put_Line() thread-safe?
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:22:55 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <4smqkt4783bt.7xvwmlmb0lej$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc395y57gm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <cfd4cf5d-9fd5-4288-b2b8-304626b8ca16@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc7gv9ycni.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <546fc310-c898-417a-9c92-a5b12ef32591@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc7gv9zia8.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4fdac8dc$0$9508$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-15T09:22:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:32:14 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 14.06.12 23:37, Robert A Duff wrote:
>> Yes, there are several things wrong with the design of Text_IO,
>> and this is one of them.  But it's not too hard to work around it.
> 
> But surely I/O routines in general should  not be thread safe
> and thus have to drag in everything required to achieve thread
> safety?

The lower-level I/O yes.

The higher-level I/O should be transaction-oriented in order to be
task-safe.

I disagree with Robert: 1) Transactions would be difficult to do taking
into account language problems with MI and MD; 2) I don't consider Text_IO
design wrong.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de