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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safety of unprotected concurrent operations on constant objects
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:14:19 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <5os0j7jd5moe.1eevhoxwpnpe5.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <slrnlm6mkg.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <6c2cd5d4-a44c-4c18-81a3-a0e87d25cd9e@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmcoqd.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <waw9v.109142$f85.65293@fx19.iad> <scy9v.1071029$2N5.142769@fx05.iad>
 <kxy9v.109149$f85.89664@fx19.iad> <lyzjiw7h6c.fsf@pushface.org>
 <fRN9v.204655$Ng5.180587@fx17.iad>
 <t7a0jcl05g1h.11jb75b2jg1l7.dlg@40tude.net> <eT_9v.574$dr.264@fx27.iad>
 <83ha6vuynrzs.1jk08faxb8mnl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <97a0996a-a593-4990-95e9-44f4e9070fd3@googlegroups.com>
 <5368b00d$0$6703$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <lqsx31h1st5k.oag3lhs8dn2i$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5368dc70$0$6708$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <ye80u8yjop49.zttq1d7bi98f$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <53690cb8$0$6602$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <63k39u59mmk8.eeonyygr5rjc$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5369d765$0$6608$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1ujfeb1baw6ri.1iprdov55030o$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <536a1821$0$6706$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: G+aXx1XI67D34t54ibhUPQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19732
Date: 2014-05-07T14:14:19+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 07 May 2014 13:25:21 +0200, G.B. wrote:

> On 07.05.14 09:40, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> They can even use C. What is the point?
> 
> The point is that
> 
> IF programmers want task-safety, and
> IF programmers need to respect timing,
> -----------
> THEN programmers may need to build safe solutions
> without "protected new".

I don't see where that follows from. Programmers may need do it without
dynamic memory allocation, unconstrained types, tasking, exceptions
whatever. Remove them from the language and anything else they may need go
without. Then we'll talk.

> The point is that, with "protected new", they cannot get
> their job done, in this case.

Which case exactly?

>>> If the programmer can request a "protected new" object,
>>
>> The choice is between requesting and not requesting this.
> 
> The choice is between safety or not,

As well as between drinking beer or not drinking beer, whereas some might
incline to non-alcoholic beer.

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