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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,33257e59bdc4d15c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-25 10:33:05 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <9c6v6h$3tq$1@news.netmar.com> Subject: Re: Entries in protected private parts Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:32:35 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:32:35 GMT Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:6934 Date: 2001-04-25T17:32:35+00:00 List-Id: 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