Re: Question about the need for requeue as described in Rationale

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <31E16978.2E90@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM> writes:

> My question was:  Why was this example used to illustrate in this
> portion of the Rationale to illustrate why the requeue statement was
> invented, if the example could also be done without using the requeue?
> That struck me as a poor use of an example.

In the particular case in question, I don't think it was there to
illustrate the why, only the what and how.


> Someone else has since pointed out that a later section is the Rationale
> was intended to serve that purpose and that this section (up front) was
> simply meant to illustrate HOW it can be used.  I would nevertheless

Right.

> argue that the text in this section (on Protected Types) does bring up a
> limitation with tasking in Ada83 and then introduces the requeue
> statement.  It seems quite logical to expect that the example would
> clarify the need for the statement by showing something that could not
> be done without it.  The example here didn't do that.

I suppose.  Shrug.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com