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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab2ba9c5d12b0f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05?
Date: 1996/07/20
Message-ID: <4ss9pu$40k@felix.seas.gwu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169262132
references: <4sjqte$3mu@masala.cc.uh.edu> <qw63f2qou73.fsf@gargantua.enst.fr>
 <dewar.837877693@schonberg>
organization: George Washington University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.837877693@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>Of course it is fine to have alternative scheduling policies, but this is
>implementation dependent, and an implementation that does not support
>the real time annex may indeed implement time slicing by default.

As I read D.2.2, nothing seems to prevent an implementation that _does_
support Annex D from implementing time-slicing by default. This
paragraph discusses the language-defined (run-till-blocked) policy,
then a configuration pragma by which the programmer can
specify a dispatching policy, but also says (para. 6) that if no such
pragma is present in a program, the dispatching policy is _unspecified_ 
(RMs word).

I am reading the lines of the RM, not between them. I see nothing in
this paragraph stopping me from interpreting this as "the implementation
can use any dispatching policy it darn well pleases". In particular, I see
no words at all requiring the use of the language-defined policy!
Where are these words?

The RM should not force me to read between its lines.:-)

Mike Feldman