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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab2ba9c5d12b0f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@henning.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05? Date: 1996/07/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168864559 sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) x-nntp-posting-host: henning.camb.inmet.com references: <4snim3$5pr@masala.cc.uh.edu> organization: Intermetrics, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Spasmo (cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote: : Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : ... : : Of course it is not truly concurrent, there is no such thing as true : : concurrency on a monoprocessor! In the Ada 95 reference manual (RM95 9.0(11)), we adopted the term "concurrency" to mean (software) multitasking, and "parallelism" to mean (hardware) multiprocessing. I doubt if there is any official distinction between these two, but I have read a number of books that adopt this convention, or something close to it. However, when one says "true concurrency" I will admit the distinction is probably lost. In any case, as was pointed out, the most obvious problem is probably the lack of overlapping of DOS I/O with task execution, which is almost certainly inherent in the implementation of DOS. One could implement periodic polling, perhaps, to accomplish the goal for terminal input, but I presume there are limits to the energy willing to be devoted to DOS-based tasking. : Spasmo -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA USA