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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,344faf475a6f812a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.185.17 with SMTP id cm17mr10156620qab.6.1366783006394; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.0.48 with SMTP id 16mr3076351qeb.6.1366783006365; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Path: ef9ni12521qab.0!nntp.google.com!gp5no5487182qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.71.180.107; posting-account=P68zsgoAAABKpXKMUuwuUZ_RfBk1kZfB NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.71.180.107 References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8131b9f6-c5ff-4b28-a2ae-599f4dcdda50@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns. From: egilhh Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:56:46 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-04-23T22:56:46-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:24:29 PM UTC+2, Adam Beneschan wrote: > On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:32:51 PM UTC-7, egilhh wrote: >=20 > > Not everyone has the same hardware as you, and your code may produce=20 >=20 > > different results on less cores or slower computers. Adding a delay 2.0= as >=20 > > Dmitry said, will reduce the likelyhood of that happening. >=20 >=20 >=20 > I just don't get this. It's common for people asking questions about the= language to post reduced cases or minimal code, i.e. to post the smallest = code they can think of that demonstrates the problem. This is a good thing= , because it lets the rest of us focus on the actual question, rather than = on details that are irrelevant to the question. And everybody here is pick= ing on his example as if this were production code. Not to mention picking= on his capitalization. >=20 Well, I don't get this. I was trying to point out that without a 2 sec dela= y,=20 there's a risk of running multiple tests in parallel. I don't know about yo= u, but to me that's a bad thing, even if it's not production code. On my compu= ter, for example, the output of tasks from the different tests got mixed up. I m= ay agree that I could have phrased it differently, but I can't see the reason = for anyone to read it in the worst possible way.=20 Sheesh, was it? --=20 ~egilhh