Re: Complexity of protected objects

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3C7A75F2.30503@worldnet.att.net>...
> Using a protected object to read and write files is a 
> clear violation of the intention and recommendations for 
> proctected objects. Protected objects should be 
> non-blocking. I/O is always potentially blocking.

Please prove this *from the RM*. Potentially blocking is
a technical term defined in the RM, it does NOT necessarily
correspond to the informal notion of some action in the
operating system which blocks execution and causes task
switching, so whether I/O is forbidden is something you
will have to check with the vendor of the compiler you
are using, and will depend on what kind of I/O you are
doing and how.

> You even have some potential blocking issues when storing 
> an AVL tree. If you dynamically allocate your AVL tree 
> nodes you have the possibility of running out of memory. 
> This will either result in a blocking situation, or a 
> potential loss of data in the AVL tree.

Again, I don't see your point, there is nothing at all to
stop a protected subprogram from doing dynamic allocation.
 
> 
> tony gair wrote:
> > do things protected objects were not designed for (is 
> > this an oxymoron?).


An oxymoron is the juxtaposition of contrasting terms for
literary effect, e.g. "deafening silence". I see nothing
literary here,

yes, yes, I know, the term has been so badly misused, that
some dictionaries by now recognize the degradation of this
beautiful word to simply mean contradiction in terms :-)