* requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee @ 2010-12-09 13:57 domel 2010-12-09 16:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: domel @ 2010-12-09 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck on requeue facility. I canno't completely grasp what the difference between requeue and requeue with abort is. Please help - some short working code example would be very appreciated ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-09 13:57 requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee domel @ 2010-12-09 16:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-12-09 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:57:09 -0800 (PST), domel wrote: > Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck on requeue facility. I > canno't completely grasp what the difference between requeue and > requeue with abort is. Use "requeue with abort" when the request is cancelable, i.e. serving it in its current entry has not changed anything that could get broken if the request were canceled later. This is the desired behavior. If serving the request changes some vital things, e.g. you have initiated its for processing memorizing some things etc, then use "requeue." Don't do this if you don't need to, because it would make the clients blocked until the request is serviced (a timed entry will not be able to cancel it). -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-09 13:57 requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee domel 2010-12-09 16:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Warren @ 2010-12-09 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) domel expounded in news:7bd3db89-ae9d-4e09-9590-676f85dcef9a@w2g2000yqb.googlegro ups.com: > Hi > Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck .. Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume you're learning dentistry. ;-) Warren ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren @ 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt 2010-12-10 5:52 ` Shark8 2010-12-10 7:14 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2010-12-10 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren" <ve3wwg@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9E498E732F9FFWarrensBlatherings@85.214.73.210... > domel expounded in > news:7bd3db89-ae9d-4e09-9590-676f85dcef9a@w2g2000yqb.googlegro > ups.com: > >> Hi >> Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck .. > > Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume > you're learning dentistry. ;-) Or selling milk. Living in Wisconsin, I know that "ADA" means American Dairy Association. Which reminds me of a barely relevant story. Back in RR Software's headay, we moved into offices formerly occupied by the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. While helping to run new network cables, I discovered that the steel beams in the office were all labeled "ADA of Wisconsin". Somehow seemed appropriate that we were using that office... Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2010-12-10 5:52 ` Shark8 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Shark8 @ 2010-12-10 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) On Dec 9, 5:11 pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > "Warren" <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9E498E732F9FFWarrensBlatherings@85.214.73.210... > > > domel expounded in > >news:7bd3db89-ae9d-4e09-9590-676f85dcef9a@w2g2000yqb.googlegro > > ups.com: > > >> Hi > >> Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck .. > > > Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume > > you're learning dentistry. ;-) > > Or selling milk. Living in Wisconsin, I know that "ADA" means American Dairy > Association. > > Which reminds me of a barely relevant story. > > Back in RR Software's headay, we moved into offices formerly occupied by the > Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. While helping to run new network cables, I > discovered that the steel beams in the office were all labeled "ADA of > Wisconsin". Somehow seemed appropriate that we were using that office... > > Randy. LOL / Awesome story. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2010-12-10 7:14 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2010-12-10 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> writes: > domel expounded in > news:7bd3db89-ae9d-4e09-9590-676f85dcef9a@w2g2000yqb.googlegro > ups.com: > >> Hi >> Since few weeks I'm learning ADA. I got stuck .. > > Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume > you're learning dentistry. ;-) Veering in the other direction, I found "ada": http://flic.kr/p/8ZNrd5 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt 2010-12-10 7:14 ` Simon Wright @ 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-12-10 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote: > Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume > you're learning dentistry. ;-) All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, COBOL, PL, SNOBOL, C. Two exceptions were Algol and Pascal. But we all know that real programmers don't use Pascal... (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica 2010-12-10 17:27 ` Robert A Duff 2010-12-10 16:11 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren 2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: AdaMagica @ 2010-12-10 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) This is an elaborate example for timed entry calls with requeue with abort. First note: There is a also a subtle difference between a conditional entry call and a timed entry call with zero delay (even though 9.7.3(3) says that they are equivalent). If the communication time between caller and callee is significant, the timed entry call is cancelled at once, even though the callee may be ready to accept. The conditional entry call will succeed because it will not be cancelled before the request reaches the callee and the open alternatives are examined (a conditional entry call to a task running on Voyager will succeed, a timed one will be cancelled). Imagine two entries E1 and E2 (not necessarily of the same task; the client calling E1 might even be oblivious of entry E2. The client performs a timed entry call with E1, which (unknown to the client is requeued with abort to E2). There exist several possibilities that the TEC expires before the requeued E2 starts as is shown in the following time tables: A. TEC delay expires before rendezvous begin of E2. T0: TEC E1 with delay D T1: rendezvous E1 starts T2: E1 requeued with abort to E2 - this ends rendezvous, but TEC of T0 continues T3=T0+D: clients patience expires E2 is cancelled - this aborts the TEC (RM 9.7.2(5)) B. TEC delay expires before E1 is requeued to E2, but within rendezvous T0: TEC E1 with delay D T1: rendezvous E1 starts T2=T0+D: delay expires, but since E1 is executing, rendezvous continues T3: requeued with abort to E2 and rendezvous E1 ends Thus, we now have to distinguish two cases: (i) E2 is ready for rendezvous: T3 cont'ed: Entry call E2 is not queued, instead rendezvous E2 starts immediately, so entry call of T0 is not cancelled. From the client's point of view, the entry call terminates normally (because the client is unaware of the requeue). (ii) E2 is not ready for rendezvous: T3 cont'ed: Entry call E2 is queued. Since the delay has already expired at T2, the entry call E2 is immediately cancelled, i.e. taken out of the queue again. This is the abortion of the timed entry call at T0 because the call did not start before the expiration (in fact, it's the call of E2 that did not start before T2, but the client is unaware of the requeue). The program below tries to verify this behaviour. The big delays in the code are just for illustration. In reality, this would be microseconds. Imagine the entry E1 is accepted just before the delay expires (it scrapes through, so to say). When there is no delay before the requeue, the task immediately requeues - but to determine the need to requeue and to do the requeue and to terminate the rendezvous need some time, albeit a tiny amount - just so much that thereafter the delay has expired. Now the conditional entry call must fail if E2 is not immediately ready. with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO; procedure Timed_Entry_Call is task Server is entry E1; end Server; task Hidden is entry Start; entry E2; end Hidden; task body Server is begin loop accept E1 do Put_Line ("E1 accepted"); delay 3.0; -- (1) do some work that takes longer than client's patience Put_Line ("E1 requeued"); requeue Hidden.E2 with abort; end E1; end loop; end Server; task body Hidden is begin accept Start; Put_Line ("E2 ready"); loop accept E2 do Put_Line ("E2 accepted"); end E2; end loop; end Hidden; begin for I in 1 .. 2 loop Put_Line ("Round" & Integer'Image (I)); select Server.E1; -- E1 is ready for rendezvous Put_Line ("E1 done"); or delay 1.0; -- (2) Put_Line ("First time aborting because E2 not ready"); Hidden.Start; -- Make E2 ready for second time end select; delay 1.0; New_Line; end loop; Put_Line ("Done"); abort Server, Hidden; end Timed_Entry_Call; -- Expected result (this is possibility B): -- Round 1 -- E1 accepted -- E1 requeued -- First time aborting because E2 not ready -- E2 ready -- -- Round 2 -- E1 accepted -- E1 requeued -- E2 accepted -- E1 done -- -- Done This is from some experiments many years ago. I hope it's complete and works. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica @ 2010-12-10 17:27 ` Robert A Duff 2010-12-11 15:59 ` AdaMagica 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2010-12-10 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) AdaMagica <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com> writes: > There is a also a subtle difference between a conditional entry call > and a timed entry call with zero delay (even though 9.7.3(3) says that > they are equivalent). That can't be right. 9.7.3(3) defines the semantics of conditional entry call. How can the RM be wrong about what the RM says? ;-) > ...If the communication time between caller and callee is significant, > the timed entry call is cancelled at once, even though the callee may > be ready to accept. No, for a timed entry call, the call is first "issued", which involves first checking whether the called task or protected object is ready. This might take a long time (in your Voyager example). It will certainly take more than 0.0 seconds, but that doesn't matter -- if the callee is ready, then the entry call proceeds. It doesn't matter that it takes a finite amount of time to determine whether the callee is ready. Only after finding the callee NOT ready do we think about cancelling the call. >...The conditional entry call will succeed because it will not be >cancelled before the request reaches the callee and the open >alternatives are examined (a conditional entry call to a task running >on Voyager will succeed, a timed one will be cancelled). Right. So a conditional call behaves the same as a timed call with "delay 0.0". It doesn't matter whether requeue is involved. Note that it doesn't matter whether the callee is ready at the time the conditional or timed call starts -- that is unknown, and unknowable. I snipped your example, because it doesn't have any conditional entry calls, nor "delay 0.0" calls, so it's not related to this equivalence. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 17:27 ` Robert A Duff @ 2010-12-11 15:59 ` AdaMagica 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: AdaMagica @ 2010-12-11 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On 10 Dez., 18:27, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote: > AdaMagica <christoph.gr...@eurocopter.com> writes: > > There is a also a subtle difference between a conditional entry call > > and a timed entry call with zero delay (even though 9.7.3(3) says that > > they are equivalent). > > That can't be right. 9.7.3(3) defines the semantics of conditional > entry call. How can the RM be wrong about what the RM says? ;-) Ha, that's funny. This is what one of your collegues at AdaCore explained (I was a supported customer at that time). And that's also what I read at several other places IIRC. And the RM is certainly "wrong" at several places where ACATS defines what is to be done (e.g. reading numerals via Text_IO from files ;-). Robert 'Dewar likes to point this out. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica @ 2010-12-10 16:11 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren 2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-10 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) On Dec 10, 12:34 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote: > > Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might assume > > you're learning dentistry. ;-) > > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, COBOL, PL, SNOBOL, C. > Two exceptions were Algol and Pascal. But we all know that real programmers > don't use Pascal... (:-)) Wikipedia lists ALGOL as being a capitalized name. (It's short for ALGOrithmic Language.) Not that they're the final authority on everything. -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica 2010-12-10 16:11 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-11 0:46 ` Peter C. Chapin 2 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Warren @ 2010-12-10 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded in news:1hvnr1d2wp3vj$.fnxma3y5cxig.dlg@40tude.net: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote: > >> Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might >> assume you're learning dentistry. ;-) > > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, COBOL, > PL, SNOBOL, C. .. That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a name, it has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I liked things they way they were. Did capitals get more expensive? Warren ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren @ 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 21:48 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-13 16:21 ` Warren 2010-12-11 0:46 ` Peter C. Chapin 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-10 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw) On Dec 10, 12:13 pm, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded innews:1hvnr1d2wp3vj$.fnxma3y5cxig.dlg@40tude.net: > > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote: > > >> Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might > >> assume you're learning dentistry. ;-) > > > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, COBOL, > > PL, SNOBOL, C. .. > > That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a name, it > has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. > > Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I liked > things they way they were. Did capitals get more expensive? I'm curious---what acronyms are you referring to? Most acronyms I see are still in upper case. (A few pronounceable acronyms ended up becoming actual words, such as "radar", but that's an exceptional case.) But I don't think there's been a rule change... -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-10 21:48 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-13 16:21 ` Warren 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2010-12-10 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes: > On Dec 10, 12:13 pm, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded innews:1hvnr1d2wp3vj$.fnxma3y5cxig.dlg@40tude.net: >> >> > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC), Warren wrote: >> >> >> Also remember it is "Ada" not "ADA". Otherwise we might >> >> assume you're learning dentistry. ;-) >> >> > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, COBOL, >> > PL, SNOBOL, C. .. >> >> That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a name, it >> has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. >> >> Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I liked >> things they way they were. Did capitals get more expensive? > > I'm curious---what acronyms are you referring to? Most acronyms I see > are still in upper case. (A few pronounceable acronyms ended up > becoming actual words, such as "radar", but that's an exceptional > case.) But I don't think there's been a rule change... In the UK there used to be the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (in the approval loop for drug use in NHS), => NIHCE, pronounced "nice", now spelt Nice ... spit (actually I think it may be about to be abolished ..) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 21:48 ` Simon Wright @ 2010-12-13 16:21 ` Warren 2010-12-13 19:55 ` Adam Beneschan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Warren @ 2010-12-13 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1662 bytes --] Adam Beneschan expounded in news:604b2e52-cfcb-49d0-9ecf-cf9f9135a57c@r19g2000prm.googlegr oups.com: > On Dec 10, 12:13�pm, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded >> > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, >> > COBOL, PL, SNOBOL, C. .. >> >> That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a >> name, it has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. >> >> Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I >> liked things they way they were. Did capitals get more >> expensive? > > I'm curious---what acronyms are you referring to? Most > acronyms I see are still in upper case. (A few > pronounceable acronyms ended up becoming actual words, such > as "radar", but that's an exceptional case.) But I don't > think there's been a rule change... > > -- Adam I believe I first heard about this change in capitalization from the publisher I worked with at the time (I wrote two Linux books and one Unix). I just took their word for it, since they were responsible for the "editing". The publishers were American (Sams and Queue, which are now now all part of the same parent company). FORTRAN and COBOL were originally acronyms and I believe COBOL still is. I also thought SNOBOL was an acronym but didn't look it up. The Chicago Book of Style mentions it here. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/search.epl? q=acronyms&site=all&client=live&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesh eet=cmosdev&filter=0&search.x=0&search.y=0&search_edition=16 You need a login to see the citation online. My hardcopy is at home, which I'll check if I still remember. Warren ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-13 16:21 ` Warren @ 2010-12-13 19:55 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-14 15:40 ` Warren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-13 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On Dec 13, 8:21 am, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Adam Beneschan expounded innews:604b2e52-cfcb-49d0-9ecf-cf9f9135a57c@r19g2000prm.googlegr > oups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 12:13 pm, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded > >> > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, > >> > COBOL, PL, SNOBOL, C. .. > > >> That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a > >> name, it has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. > > >> Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I > >> liked things they way they were. Did capitals get more > >> expensive? > > > I'm curious---what acronyms are you referring to? Most > > acronyms I see are still in upper case. (A few > > pronounceable acronyms ended up becoming actual words, such > > as "radar", but that's an exceptional case.) But I don't > > think there's been a rule change... > > > -- Adam > > I believe I first heard about this change in capitalization > from the publisher I worked with at the time (I wrote two > Linux books and one Unix). I just took their word for it, > since they were responsible for the "editing". > > The publishers were American (Sams and Queue, which are now > now all part of the same parent company). FORTRAN and COBOL > were originally acronyms and I believe COBOL still is. I also > thought SNOBOL was an acronym but didn't look it up. > > The Chicago Book of Style mentions it here. > > http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/search.epl? > q=acronyms&site=all&client=live&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesh > eet=cmosdev&filter=0&search.x=0&search.y=0&search_edition=16 > > You need a login to see the citation online. My hardcopy is at > home, which I'll check if I still remember. We happen to have the 13th edition at the office, but that's pretty old (1982) so I don't know how much use it is. However, I did notice that there were two separate sections---one had to do with capitalization of software-related acronyms, and another with acronyms in general. The section on the latter listed things like UN, NAACP, NATO, AARP, none of which I've ever seen in anything but all- capitals. (Except maybe Interpol.) I'm guessing that when you were asking "why they changed the rules" you were referring only to software-related or computer-related acronyms. I didn't pick up on that at first. I'm interested to see what the Chicago manual says about this. From what I can gather from Wikipedia, though, capitalization is just plain inconsistent. FORTRAN officially became spelled Fortran in 1990. Unix is trademarked as UNIX but is often written as Unix, or sometimes with the "nix" in small caps. SNOBOL is still all-caps; SnoBol is a toilet bowl cleaner. SAIL, one of the languages mentioned in the 13th- edition Chicago Manual, is likewise all-caps. Wikipedia says that ALGOL is all caps, but that article itself sometimes uses "Algol" with no explanation for the inconsistency, except (I guess) that you can expect some inconsistency when you let everybody and their brother edit your encyclopedia. Wikipedia also says "Lisp" is the correct spelling, but LISP is sometimes used by authors or vendors, and there's no explanation of why there's a difference or whether the spelling changed at some point in time. -- Adam -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-13 19:55 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-14 15:40 ` Warren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Warren @ 2010-12-14 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2437 bytes --] Adam Beneschan expounded in news:67977735-3e49-45bd-9919-06ddc1240dc2@u9g2000pra.googlegro ups.com: > On Dec 13, 8:21�am, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Adam Beneschan expounded >> > On Dec 10, 12:13 pm, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded >> >> > All elder languages had capitalized names: FORTRAN, >> >> > COBOL, PL, SNOBOL, C. .. >> >> >> That was once true of acronyms, but not for names. As a >> >> name, it has never been right to fully capitalize Ada. >> >> >> Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me >> >> though. I liked things they way they were. Did capitals >> >> get more expensive? >> >> > I'm curious---what acronyms are you referring to? �Most >> > acronyms I see are still in upper case. �(A few >> > pronounceable acronyms ended up becoming actual words, >> > such as "radar", but that's an exceptional case.) �But I >> > don't think there's been a rule change... >> >> I believe I first heard about this change in >> capitalization from the publisher I worked with at the >> time (I wrote two Linux books and one Unix). I just took >> their word for it, since they were responsible for the >> "editing". .. >> You need a login to see the citation online. My hardcopy >> is at home, which I'll check if I still remember. > > We happen to have the 13th edition at the office, but > that's pretty old (1982) so I don't know how much use it > is. However, I did notice that there were two separate > sections---one had to do with capitalization of > software-related acronyms, and another with acronyms in .. > I'm interested to see what the Chicago manual says about > this. From what I can gather from Wikipedia, though, > capitalization is just plain inconsistent. FORTRAN > officially became spelled Fortran in 1990. Unix is > trademarked as UNIX but is often written as Unix, or > sometimes with the "nix" in small caps. .. It could be it was primarily "UNIX" vs "Unix" that I ran into this. The rules may be different once trademarked or perhaps it was trademarked with that particular capitalization. But my editor gave me at the time the impression that the rules had changed. My 14th edition (1993) doesn't seem to reflect any change of rules. I also cannot seem to otherwise find signs of it on the net, unless like you pointed out, it applies only to software language acronyms. In any case, the rules are many in this area. ;-) Warren ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-11 0:46 ` Peter C. Chapin 2010-12-11 1:39 ` Adam Beneschan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Peter C. Chapin @ 2010-12-11 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2010-12-10 15:13, Warren wrote: > Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I liked > things they way they were. Did capitals get more expensive? My understanding is that FORTRAN was officially renamed Fortran during the deliberations that lead to Fortran 90. I could be wrong about this; I think I picked up this tidbit while I was lurking on comp.lang.fortran, but I'm sure everything said there is true. :) Anyway I believe that FORTRAN refers to the pre-Fortran 90 versions of the language and Fortran refers to all following versions. Peter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee 2010-12-11 0:46 ` Peter C. Chapin @ 2010-12-11 1:39 ` Adam Beneschan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2010-12-11 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw) On Dec 10, 4:46 pm, "Peter C. Chapin" <PCha...@vtc.vsc.edu> wrote: > On 2010-12-10 15:13, Warren wrote: > > > Why they changed the rule for acronyms, beats me though. I liked > > things they way they were. Did capitals get more expensive? > > My understanding is that FORTRAN was officially renamed Fortran during > the deliberations that lead to Fortran 90. I could be wrong about this; > I think I picked up this tidbit while I was lurking on > comp.lang.fortran, but I'm sure everything said there is true. :) Your understanding is consistent with what Wikipedia says. There's no explanation of *why* the change in case, though. My guess is that changing it from all-caps to mostly-lower-case in 1990 was, at heart, a change from proclaiming proudly that one used the language to whispering it, probably out of embarrassment that people were still using such ridiculously out-of-date language technology... :) :) :) -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-12-14 15:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-12-09 13:57 requeue vs requeue with abort - code example pleaseeee domel 2010-12-09 16:22 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-09 19:00 ` Warren 2010-12-10 0:11 ` Randy Brukardt 2010-12-10 5:52 ` Shark8 2010-12-10 7:14 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-10 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2010-12-10 10:12 ` AdaMagica 2010-12-10 17:27 ` Robert A Duff 2010-12-11 15:59 ` AdaMagica 2010-12-10 16:11 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 20:13 ` Warren 2010-12-10 21:30 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-10 21:48 ` Simon Wright 2010-12-13 16:21 ` Warren 2010-12-13 19:55 ` Adam Beneschan 2010-12-14 15:40 ` Warren 2010-12-11 0:46 ` Peter C. Chapin 2010-12-11 1:39 ` Adam Beneschan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox