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: 103376,701d3ed4f915aaf8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Tasks vs Task Types
Date: 1996/05/07
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96May7193912@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 153587836
distribution: world
references: <4mnra4$qc6@gde.GDEsystems.COM>
 <4mofak$vtc@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4mofak$vtc@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) writes:

  > Often it is desired to create only one task belonging to a particular
  > task type.  In that case, there is a notational shorthand:  If you leave
  > the word "type" out of the declaration, it declares both an anonymous
  > type and a single task object belonging to that type...

    True but slightly misleading.  Every time the task object
declaration is elaborated, it creates a task.  All these tasks have
the same anonymous type.  In Ada 83 it was a challenge to find cases
where this mattered, ;-) In Ada 95 it is somewhat important,
especially when using some of the features of the systems programming
annex.

    But most Ada programmers never put task object declarations inside
recursively called subprograms.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...