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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f6ee8ca03c176d76 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-29 17:34:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin D. Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: stupid question: how can I finish a program? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:26:56 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3D6E52EF.2010406@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-180.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1030645630 15349 136.170.200.180 (29 Aug 2002 18:27:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2002 18:27:10 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28582 Date: 2002-08-29T18:27:10+00:00 List-Id: But thats what Windows *does* when you kill a process. Is that an Ada problem or a Windows problem? What if the Ada program crashed? Would we say that the Ada standard should not permit crashes because the effects on the OS are not portable or may be unreliable? :-) (Boy, we'd really have the C/C++ guys on the ropes! "Its against the ARM for an Ada program to crash, so if it does, blame your compiler vendor..." :-) Sure, maybe Windows is an example of rebootive multitasking, but if someone develops on top of Windows, its their design choice and they have to live with the limitations. If Ada had its own flavor of "abort();" under Windows it would be no more dangerous than C or C++ in that regard. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling Digital. Our Vision is to be the biggest supplier worldwide of digital gateway technology. www.pacemicro.com "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message news:3D6E52EF.2010406@cogeco.ca... > > The other question that comes up with COM objects is whether or not > the object should be "unreferenced". But if you do allow the unref > call, then other code may run that may experience "difficulties". > The UNIX equivalent of a kill -9 in windows would leave many COM > objects referenced after the processes are gone. Yuk. I smell another > reboot coming on ;-) >