Entries in protected private parts

Entries in protected private parts

[adam]

Apologies in advance if this post gets screwed up.  This is the first time
I've attempted to post since Deja.com ended up on the
AshHeapOfHistory.com.

The language appears to allow entry declarations in the private part of a
protected type declaration (9.4(4-6)).  However, the entry can only be 
referenced from the body of the same protected unit, which means it can be
called only from a protected operation; and 9.5.1(8,11) says it's an error
if a protected action makes an entry call.  So is there any possible reason
to declare an entry in a protected type's private part?  Was there a 
particular reason why the language allowed this?

				-- thanks, Adam






 -----  Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web  -----
  http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
   NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam.  If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email abuse@newsone.net

Re: Entries in protected private parts

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9c6v6h$3tq$1@news.netmar.com>, adam@irvine.com says...
>
>Apologies in advance if this post gets screwed up.  This is the first time
>I've attempted to post since Deja.com ended up on the
>AshHeapOfHistory.com.
>
>The language appears to allow entry declarations in the private part of a
>protected type declaration (9.4(4-6)).  However, the entry can only be 
>referenced from the body of the same protected unit, which means it can be
>called only from a protected operation; and 9.5.1(8,11) says it's an error
>if a protected action makes an entry call.  So is there any possible reason
>to declare an entry in a protected type's private part?  Was there a 
>particular reason why the language allowed this?


"requeue". It's damn handy for that.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com