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
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e859f774bbb3dfb3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.unit0.net!news.germany.com!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <54157920-377a-441b-9b0b-f0c4f9ddffec@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
  <54435596-5e7f-4686-a2b7-1e22d7c4b186@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccr6arzz3c.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <HaX6k.217614$yE1.198719@attbi_s21>
 <483ugmvkl2ea.1hrqsq7ru4t1x$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcck5ghtd2f.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <12dhu8e1w5ac9.1s9hzkf9d2rsy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3bc1018b-b275-4a59-8302-6a3262766f63@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:41:01 +0200
Message-ID: <6ug5vhz5j1e4$.1lqpd52jz6qry.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2008 18:41:02 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6216bbf3.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=U7iQW`DDA2PE47KDAk81NWic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ<`=YMgDjhgRNK0oFROO;kY[6LHn;2LCV^[<mhadbfdU[`3LANL^AIj\XK`9A\0i@gU
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:840
Date: 2008-06-24T18:41:02+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> I've probably lost the plot of this thread.  But in regards to the
> example, I think the example is "no".  The semantics should be exactly
> the same as if Interesting's body were simply "return X : T;".  The
> first extended return statement that raises an exception doesn't have
> any effect, in terms of starting a new task or anything like that,
> because the RM explicitly says that task activation doesn't occur
> until after the function returns (6.5(7)).

OK, then the notorious problem of Ada 95, that a task cannot be
initialized, in the sense that upon initialization you could pass
parameters to it via a rendezvous, is still there. "Constructing functions"
do not help here, because you cannot engage a rendezvous before return. Too
bad.

Tasks finalization does not work either, because there is no destructing
functions ("malfunctions" to use the name Robert Duff suggested (:-))
anyway.

Task as a component is still no runner...

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