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,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-29 08:18:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!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: Standard Queue status Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:53:09 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9u5ll7$ron$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1007049191 28439 136.170.200.133 (29 Nov 2001 15:53:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2001 15:53:11 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:17168 Date: 2001-11-29T15:53:11+00:00 List-Id: "Stephen Leake" wrote in message news:ubshlheoj.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov... > > lists must be efficient enough for hard real-time use > I don't think this was a requirement and would be hard to meet if any sort of dynamic allocation is being done. It isn't so much an efficiency issue as it is a determinism issue. IIRC, there seemed to be some consensus that a v1.0 implementation could be sort of "general purpose computing" and that other variations of the structures could be designed to meet things like realtime requirements. > lists must be safe in a multitasking environment > It would be nice to have a flavor of lists that met this requirement, but I think the general feeling was that a) it wasn't needed for v1.0 and b) the user could do this for themselves by encasing the list in a protected type. > > list elements must not be private > Why not? Are you saying they need to be limited private? What would you expect them to be if they were not private? 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/