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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.13.194.196 with SMTP id e187mr1371193ywd.39.1500391693400;
        Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.36.116.15 with SMTP id o15mr101558itc.0.1500391693300; Tue,
 18 Jul 2017 08:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!14no161700qtn.1!news-out.google.com!196ni756itl.0!nntp.google.com!t6no259934itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <okkcgc$1m31$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.113.92.25;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.113.92.25
References: <ok8kmo$1b1f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <okcud7$uhp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <okgc70$ipv$1@dont-email.me> <okjjk8$ggi$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <okkcgc$1m31$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <790e2ec3-e14b-423a-9943-00525f37e7f1@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Feature suggestion: different task schedules
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:28:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47447
Date: 2017-07-18T08:28:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:14:24 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 18/07/2017 02:09, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> > I agree. And more importantly, what it is supposed to do that can't be done
> > with the pragmas noted above.
> 
> Co-routines, I suppose.
> 
> > And most important of all -- what problem
> > needs to be solved.
> 
> A co-routine with task interface lacking task overhead.

Is that really a problem though?