RE: Protected Type Question.

["Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>]

Robert,

Am I supposed to say thanks for this?

Since the only positive statement was
"Certainly this should work fine", I
guess I'm compelled to follow it up
with some questions since you didn't
offer anything more useful.

Concerning your comment
"and is very poor programming style".
Since it is taken directly from the LRM,
are you saying the LRM is written in
poor programming style?  The fact that I
split it into a package spec and body
is poor programming style?  Elaborate
please.

Concerning, "though of course no one would
use it in the form given (it is obviously
subject to priority inversion".  Our system
is a message correction system that is not
required to be real-time, other than it can't
be too slow.  All our tasks are at the same
priority so there isn't any inversion.  But
for argument's sake, lets say I need this type
of "semaphore" for protecting critical regions
within a system that contains prioritized tasks.
What would be your suggestion for "correcting"
the form so that is not subject to priority
inversion and bad programming style? 

I usually go out of my way to give someone
something useful.  I haven't done it much 
here yet because I'm new to the list.  But,
it rubs me the wrong way to get an answer
that is not only terse, but somewhat
condescending as well.  If you're going to
make such statements, offer a solution.
Something positive.  A way to correct it.
"Here's a better way".  Something.

I don't want insults, I want assistance.  If
I can offer something to someone less 
experienced or less knowledgeable, I try to do
so, and hopefully with a little more mercy.

Anyone can say something is lousy, but few
can offer a better way.  Which one are you?
Which one do you want to be?

If bashing is what I want, I'll become a C++
programmer and slam Ada for no good reason.

Frank

PS.
If that's not the way you meant your response,
I take it all back. ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Dewar [mailto:robert_dewar@my-deja.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 10:57 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Protected Type Question.

Certainly this should work fine, though of course no one would
use it in the form given (it is obviously subject to priority
inversion, and is very poor programming style).


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
_______________________________________________
comp.lang.ada mailing list
comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada