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
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr2787540pbc.5.1339689727216;
        Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni50327pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:01:58 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <5bf5skj1k4x6.2qz0z1lunonm$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc395y57gm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <e9ck9h3fhhdz$.14u3tg094wfed.dlg@40tude.net> <jrcu2h$uh9$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4RFYTQ6jM/dAKFJoI0fUkg.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-06-14T18:01:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:56:16 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 14/06/2012 16:38, Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
>> It would be nice if the exception would propagate in the task's master, but
>> that is impossible without a rendezvous or asynchronous control transfer on
>> the master's side.
>> 
> Asynchronous raising of exceptions was in preliminary Ada, the issue was
> studied, and removed for Ada 83. It was proposed again for Ada95, fully
> reassessed, and dismissed again. It was in Java1, and strongly
> discouraged (nothing disappears from Java!) starting from Java2.
> 
> Definitely a bad idea!

Yes, I wonder why it was considered at all, it does not make any sense to
me.

I thought about exception propagating from any accept statement the master
would perform, unless the statement had an alternative of some reserved
name, which would take exception occurrence of the client as a parameter.

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