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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,722530427d626919 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-11 17:47:13 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Protected Type Question. Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:45:51 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 976585630 42738 137.194.161.2 (12 Dec 2000 01:47:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:47:10 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta5 Precedence: bulk List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:2962 Date: 2000-12-11T20:45:51-05:00 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