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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2dda499a002ec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-10 20:41:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: rendez-vous underlying mechanism Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:58:20 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CA2A827.11140295@adaworks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018461502 14904 136.170.200.133 (10 Apr 2002 17:58:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Apr 2002 17:58:22 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22344 Date: 2002-04-10T17:58:22+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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.