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,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical,
Date: 1997/05/19
Message-ID: <EAG26y.6K6@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 243296631
References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com>
 <EACHUS.97May16192037@spectre.mitre.org>
 <01bc63a2$e3e1a940$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001805971550190001@news.ni.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <mheaney-ya023680001805971550190001@news.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <mheaney@ni.net> wrote:
>This was my first time using a protected object, and perhaps I have misused
>it somehow.  Maybe a state-changing protected procedure would force a new
>random number to be generated when invoked, and it was incorrect to use a
>protected function.

That's right.  Protected functions aren't supposed to modify state like
that, since multiple protected functions (on the same protected object)
can execute in parallel.  I don't know if that's the bug causing your
trouble, but is *a* bug.  As you say -- use a protected procedure.  If
you insist on function-call notation, then wrap *that* in (normal)
function.

- Bob