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: 103376,2ef079ff5a848a09,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@zippy.cc.ukans.edu (Ted Dennison)
Subject: Efficiency of gaurds
Date: 1997/02/12
Message-ID: <5dr7g6$o4j$1@news.iag.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218151748
organization: Internet Access Group, Orlando, Florida
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


This question came up in my class:

My professor claims that guarding select alternatives which won't ever
contain a rendezvous (in that iteration of the select) is more efficient
than just leaving them open. He said that that way the tasking executive
won't have to check that paticular rendezvous. I'm not sure I bought this
logic. It seems to me that there could be some implementations where it
would actually be less efficient to do this, and it adds complexity to the
user program. (Which means errors).

Anyway, I'd like to ask folks who have actually *written* tasking
executives if my prof speaks the truth here.

T.E.D.