Re: Composing tasks and protected objects

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message
news:87oe88bvse.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de...
....
> This introduces overhead in terms of an additional task, and the
> Forwarder and Server are strongly coupled (unless you manually write
> wrappers, because access-to-entry types are missing).

Yes, but an implementation of the proposed feature probably would have to
introduce that task anyway. It would end up costing about the same, yet it
would look cheap. That's generally bad language design.

                      Randy.