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: 103376,6ff6ac051491e437 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Question about the need for requeue as described in Rationale Date: 1996/07/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167462641 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31c8fdd4.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <31E16978.2E90@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" 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