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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,39579ad87542da0e X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.200.202 with SMTP id ex10mr25791334qab.8.1368709766449; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:09:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.120.68 with SMTP id la4mr426572qeb.35.1368709766433; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Path: y6ni49017qax.0!nntp.google.com!gj8no281710qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=129.59.203.69; posting-account=7Oy7OQoAAABhVYFOo553Cn1-AaU-bSfl NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.59.203.69 References: <1bfhq7jo34xpi.p8n2vq6yjsea.dlg@40tude.net> <12gn9wvv1gwfk.10ikfju4rzmnj.dlg@40tude.net> <1oy5rmprgawqs.1jz36okze0xju$.dlg@40tude.net> <1q2ql1e4rcgko.diszzq1mhaq8$.dlg@40tude.net> <518dedd4$0$6581$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1um7tijeo609b$.1gtdijp0acfmn$.dlg@40tude.net> <1nkyb845dehcu.1sd90udwsrpdu.dlg@40tude.net> <1mg9eepp12ood$.14lj7s8a7eygd$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <60a30c36-4b4f-4dcb-83eb-e018f4f016f0@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms From: Eryndlia Mavourneen Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:09:26 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-05-16T06:09:25-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:31:58 AM UTC-5, Peter C. Chapin wrote: > ... > In the more general case there would be "task operators" that=20 > would allow you to compose tasks to make new tasks (higher order tasks?)= =20 > and you would be able to store different tasks into the same variable of= =20 > task type provided all the tasks had the same type (but possibly differen= t=20 > bodies). Of course this language isn't Ada. >=20 > That said, the Ada 2005 features of synchronized and protected interfaces= =20 > are moving into this terrian. A full theoretical accounting of Ada task= =20 > types would be a very interesting exercise (has it been done?). > ... > Peter Yes, indeed! In a project of my own that I work on in my nearly negligible= spare time, I use a number of task interfaces representing possible featur= es of a service and compose the specific service I desire using a mix of th= ese interfaces. Some interfaces are required by virtually every service, h= owever most are not. This is one method to trim the size of the individual= services, instead of trying to shoe-horn many unused features into a singl= e task. Eryndlia Mavourneen