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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!uhcl.CSNET!ROGERS
From: ROGERS@uhcl.CSNET ("Pat Rogers, High Tech Lab")
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: entries as generic actuals
Message-ID: <8607100354.AA11509@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 09:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607100354.AA11509
Posted: Wed Jul  9 09:06:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 07:11:37 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The question about the legality of passing an entry as the actual
to a generic formal subprogram parameter is easy enough: see RM 12.3/4,
and a couple of other places too.


Here's one for you : why is it legal to declare an entry in a task
declaration, and then not give a corresponding accept ? You have to give
supbprogram bodies for subprograms declared in the visible part of
a package, so why not for tasks ?  Who cares, you ask ? If you call such
an entry, it will suspend indefinitely.  I can find no references to this
in the LRM. Anybody know where one is if I'm wrong, or what the rationale
is if I'm right ?  (For what it's worth (apologies, etc), the DEC compiler
took it without objecting...)

Thanks !
Pat Rogers
PRogers@Ada20.isi.edu