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: 103376,13c68a067434682
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Task question
Date: 1997/10/07
Message-ID: <EHp4K0.6MF@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 279158771
References: <3439D647.7C43@home.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <3439D647.7C43@home.com>, Larry Coon  <lmcoon@home.com> wrote:
>If I do:
>
>   or
>      terminate;
>
>in place of the exit then it knows when the "calling"
>task is done and will terminate the task, but this isn't
>what I want -- the "other stuff" never gets executed.

When a terminate alternative is selected, the task will finalize all its
local variables before actually becoming terminated.  So you can put the
"other stuff" in a Finalize procedure, and have it executed that way.
If the "other stuff" needs access to local data inside the task, you can
put that data inside the Limited_Controlled object, or you can get at it
via an access discriminant.

>I've also tried adding another accept as a signal for
>when the "calling" task is done:
>
>task body x is
>begin
>   loop
>      select
>         accept my_rendezvous (some_data: some_data_type) do
>            -- Rendezvous stuff
>         end my_rendezvous;
>      or
>         accept done do
>            exit;
>         end done;

If you willing to have the extra entry, then do this:
          accept done;
          exit;
So the exit statement comes *after* the accept statement, not inside
it.

>      end select;
>   end loop;
>   -- Now do more stuff.
>end x;

- Bob