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: 103376,3e11ef4efc073f6b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: requeue with abort and timed call
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: 
 <2a60b044-6a5c-4ce6-93e6-6eeefc8806c3@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
  <1f6rcb1qwt7vx.1mckzyk9ucohf.dlg@40tude.net>
 <84c56781-1cb1-4d86-be14-e66fc9fdade6@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:16:34 +0100
Message-ID: <7p8onuvzdz18$.1m1dq8n3b52q5.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Dec 2008 18:16:37 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: f0959fc2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=U:QK@He^AIJj7E:bke<5HF4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIE2JJE?:l4XIDNcfSJ;bb[EIRnRBaCd<MNJdi:l?CN4\IB:g^>1gSIBH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4073
Date: 2008-12-28T18:16:37+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:53:44 -0800 (PST), christoph.grein@eurocopter.com
wrote:

> I do not see a problem with aborting. Why should the entry call be
> aborted?

Because the request remains *queued* after expiration of the timed entry
call.

-----------------
If GNAT's implementation is conform to RM, then it is a language bug. The
behavior of a timed entry call shall not depend on whether the entry body
is occasionally split into several pieces glued by requeue-with-abort
statements. I am not a language lawyer, but I doubt that such a huge issue
was overlooked.

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