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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8893269a4640c798 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-27 14:52:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!feed.cgocable.net!read1.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F17DF3C.4080204@noplace.com> <3F196773.2060809@noplace.com> <3F19F86C.9050808@attbi.com> <3F1A772F.9060708@noplace.com> <3F1AD6FB.8080806@attbi.com> <3F1BD666.6040506@noplace.com> <3F1C4DA6.3070405@attbi.com> <3F1D29E8.60107@noplace.com> <3F1D2FDC.1070402@noplace.com> Subject: Re: terminate applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:52:22 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1059343073 24.150.168.167 (Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:57:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:57:53 EDT Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40874 Date: 2003-07-27T17:52:22-04:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:q5jLYypXp6Yg@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > > "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:etldVqgp8sE1@eisner.encompasserve.org... > >> In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > > >> > The other API entries (if useful), can be provided > >> > by a Halt.Aux package or some other extension perhaps. > >> > >> Presuming the VMS choices cover the universe of possibilities (doubtful), > >> what basis is there to think there is a uniform view of what is "the other" > >> method. > > > > How many ways would you expect there to be in this "universe of program > > terminations"? You seem to be implying that this could be huge (and thus > > a problem). I doubt that even more than your doubt, so there ;-) > > It only takes two to cause a problem: What problem? We are talking about process/thread termination here. > One set of semantics supported by one group of operating systems. > > Another set of semantics supported by another group of operating > systems. The only ones that I know about (which exclude VMS) are pretty plain and easy to choose from! > So which of those should be chosen for operating systems on which either > set of semantics is supported by the operating system ? Certainly that > should be part of the definition, rather than having two separate Ada > implementations do it differently on the same operating system. Even > a loose "do what you can" definition is inadequate in that situation. You'll need to provide some VMS specifics that demonstrate a real problem. Otherwise, I fail to see a problem. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg