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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,22ab316b1096e177
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Tasks, Entries, and Variables of a Class-wide type
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <958760a1-b26b-4641-be4c-b742c2e0e836@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <7e77bb8f-17b6-4d51-9946-ea825f726682@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <ckmpf7cxf86x$.123uob2jwdt0z$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3dcee4c7-9753-41a1-8181-6e7e363bfbe8@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <ian2kg$js8$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.254.71
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1288639695 17747 127.0.0.1 (1 Nov 2010 19:28:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.254.71;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12)
 Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16093
Date: 2010-11-01T12:28:15-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 1, 12:50=A0pm, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
> On 11/01/2010 08:30 AM, Shark8 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Crap; you're right!
> > While I certainly like the idea of having a task-construct within the
> > language itself, I'm still quite new to using them in-practice.
> > Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> Interestingly, your original problem does not exist if you use compositio=
n
> rather than type extension.
>
> --
> Jeff Carter
> "Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out?"
> Horse Feathers
> 49

Ah, you mean something like a Variant-record? Or am I misunderstanding
you?

Type Object_Type is ( ps_Interger, ps_Character, ps_Name [etc] );
Type PostScript_Object( Type_Discriminant : Object_Type ) is Record
  Case Type_Discriminant is
    When ps_Interger  =3D> Integer_Value : Integer;
    When ps_Character =3D> Character_Value : Character;
    When ps_Name      =3D> String_Value: String; -- Not allowed,
unconstrained type
  end case;
end record;

In the above the solution of an Access_String would be unsuitable if
the parser-task was running on a separate machine [or, more
specifically/correctly, a separate address-space... FireWire networks
can have a memory map which allows devices to access one other's
memories].