Re: D.10

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>]

In article <wccogks5yhv.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> That kind of statement would have more credibility if you
> gave some reasons.  ;-)

There is no reason not to optimize special forms of
protected records to get the same efficiency that is
possible from suspension objects, and I think this kind
of general optimization seems preferable to creating a
new concept in the RM, which is not even properly
defined (as you Robert Duff admit :-)

At the very least I would have preferred that the RM define
the semantics of Suspension_Object in terms of a protected
record and then suggest that implementations might want to
provide more efficient solutions for this.

Now that I reread the thread, and finally understand what
Matthew is asking (sorry for being slow on this one), I
think he has a real point, the semantics of
Suspension_Object is indeed extremely murky. Indeed the
phrase "atomic with respect .." is completely gobbledygook
since it is nowhere defined what this means.

It is as though some completely separate author wrote this
chapter and chucked it in and nobody paid any attention to
it. That may be a bit unfair, but I know I paid no
attention to it, and I cannot believe that anyone would
have read it carefully and not raised a huge red flag on
seeing the inappropriate language used in this section.

So I guess the ARG has some real work cut out here to
define this annoying gizmo :-)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own