Re: rendez-vous underlying mechanism

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

That may be true, but if you over-specify the semantics you can end up with
a situation where the feature is just too hard to implement in some places.
Is it better to have the semantics more specific and then only have a few
implementations (destroying portability along the way)? Or is it better to
be a little more loose with the requirements so that you can more easily
implement it on bare hardware, Unix, Windows, Macintosh, etc. etc. etc. and
rely on the developers to understand and work within the limitations? More
rigid requirements might have also closed out options that enable vendors to
provide multiple implementation choices (like round-robin,
run-until-blocked, etc) that gives the customer choices about what is best
for the particular app in question.

Everything is a compromise in the real world, so while I understand the
desire to have less ambiguity, you only get it by giving up something else.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Kevin Cline" <kcline17@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba162549.0204100919.7cfc14dc@posting.google.com...
>
> It doesn't matter much whether it's the norm.  If the language standard
> doesn't guarantee any useful semantics then programs that use the
> Ada tasking model for the aforementioned purpose are not portable
> across compilers.