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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-01 09:40:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!opentransit.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why not Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:56:49 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9rrush$ckt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BC5D730.DA950CC7@boeing.com> <9q4pa7$1ad$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BC6ACC8.23EF21BC@free.fr> <3BC71F54.1FFE78FA@boeing.com> <1KGx7.26476$ev2.35117@www.newsranger.com> <3BC7AD82.2A0CCCD4@acm.org> <9qhiqr$af0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <1nDC7.180$6S7.92255364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <9rjsak$bp3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9rmhb9$o1b$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BDEF0FE.B55FED9E@san.rr.com> <9rmuqi$es$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BDF1F13.4B99361C@san.rr.com> <9rnbtv$5i4$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BE03E54.57E0E6C8@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1004633809 12957 136.170.200.133 (1 Nov 2001 16:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Nov 2001 16:56:49 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15556 Date: 2001-11-01T16:56:49+00:00 List-Id: Well, O.K. Maybe we could agree that the Mark 1, Mod 0, Standard Issue, Plain Vanilla version of the standard component library (the one that constitutes A Good Start) could eliminate task safety as a requirement? The reason would be that a) you could create thread-safe versions by wrapping them in a protected type as an exercise for the student and/or b) a later version could have a "task-safe" branch that duplicated the interfaces but provided internal guarantees of task safety IFF there is any significant need for it. We might also eliminate as a Mark 1, Mod 0 requirement the need for bounded/static implementations. I'd be happy to see a version that used dynamic allocation because it would be suitable for most Workstation/PC sorts of apps that had no realtime requirements. (A large subset of the universe of all possible applications) Any sort of bounded/static implementations could likewise be realized in a later version if there was any significant interest. One could imagine a tree that looked sort of like this: ASCL.Containers.Unbounded ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Lists ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Lists.Sorted ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Maps ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Task_Safe ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Task_Safe.Lists ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Task_Safe.Lists.Sorted ASCL.Containers.Unbounded.Task_Safe.Maps ASCL.Containers.Bounded ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Lists ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Lists.Sorted ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Maps ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Task_Safe ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Task_Safe.Lists ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Task_Safe.Lists.Sorted ASCL.Containers.Bounded.Task_Safe.Maps ASCL.Other_Stuff_That_Might_Appear_Useful_Someday..... Concentrating on the plain ASCL.Containers.Unbounded branch first (Ignore Task_Safe) would get a useful subset of containers available. How would that sound as a proposal? Ideas? Votes? BTW: Please don't pick on the names. We can always agree on a set of names later. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:Z_dE7.8725$xS6.11497@www.newsranger.com... > I'm not particularly happy that Text_IO works that way (its a tremendous source > of errors), but I think I have to agree. It'd be nice to have task safe > versions, but given the state of the rest of the standard Ada library, it would > probably be more consistent *not* to have them. However, an instantiation of the > facility should be task safe when *different* container objects are being used > (no globals). >