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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: ffc1e,fb45e48e8dddeabd
X-Google-Attributes: gidffc1e,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fb45e48e8dddeabd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Tutorial #1
Date: 1999/12/18
Message-ID: <86n1r85usw.fsf@ppp-115-175.villette.club-internet.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 562289097
References: <839toq$pu$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
 <slrn85h77n.68i.kaz@ashi.FootPrints.net> <3858E5B3.9AB004E9@bton.ac.uk>
 <385984BC.1FB1@hello.nl>
 <86aen9z7qi.fsf@ppp-111-13.villette.club-internet.fr>
 <385AE411.1A54@hello.nl>
X-Trace: front5.grolier.fr 945517764 24664 194.158.115.175 (18 Dec 1999
 11:49:24 GMT)
Organization: Club-Internet (France)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Dec 1999 11:49:24 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-18T11:49:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Karel Th�nissen <thoenissen@hello.nl> writes:
> [...] Yes, this works, if you have the source code... And even if
> you have the source code, quality assurance policies can inhibit
> your opening it. [...]

I assume any QA policy will beat down programs where clients do all
the locking work, that's just too dangerous, and need a complete proof
again each time one line of client code is added.  I have a hard time
imagining QA forcing you to work around an incomplete API by damaging
the safety of the system, instead of letting you put your stuff where
it belongs and where it's easy to prove correct. (That's why I didn't
understand your earlier clain, sorry about that ;-).

Do you have any concrete example of such policy?

--LG