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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05? Date: 1996/07/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169801790 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4sjqte$3mu@masala.cc.uh.edu> <19960718.082642.172@satcom.whit.org> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4ss86l$30v@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > >Actually, that brings up another point. Since you have Win95 > >why are you running the DOS version of GNAT under a DOS window instead > >of just using the native Win95? > > But it should not matter; the point is the same. Indeed, one's > multitasking program ought to behave in the same way - on an input/ > output basis - with or without time-slicing. If it does not, it is > a poorly designed concurrent program. Yes, sure. But, I think that in many ways what was being asked about and expected was the sort of behavior that OS threads implementations provide. In particular, that an IO does not block _the program_, only the task. From this perspective, while it might not matter wrt to the correctness of the program if this is true, it definitely matters wrt to the user of the program and its intended use and possibily even its usability. So, whether it "matters" is not simply an issue of "correctness"... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com