Re: rendez-vous underlying mechanism

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Kevin Cline" <kcline17@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba162549.0204100919.7cfc14dc@posting.google.com...
> "Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com> wrote in message
news:<HgXs8.1415$L95.632339599@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
<snip>
> > > I was certainly surprised
> > > when I attempted to create a separate task for I/O but found that
> > > all tasks blocked anyway because they were mapped to a single Unix thread.
> > > On that implementation Ada multi-tasking was uselsss for solving
> > > problems routinely handled with Posix threads.
> >
> > Agreed; an undesirable implementation if the option of mapping tasks to
Pthreads
> > was not available, but that's my point -- that was a given implementation
that I
> > don't believe is not the norm today.
>
> It doesn't matter much whether it's the norm.  If the language standard
> doesn't guarantee any useful semantics then programs that use the
> Ada tasking model for the aforementioned purpose are not portable
> across compilers.

If you expect a language standard -- any language standard -- to specify such a
mapping to an operating system implementation you will remain "surprised".