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-Thread: 103376,7769c087a4d30c0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!newsstand.newsread.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:39:25 -0500
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <1120751455.846822.141050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <1xuh1gs97pwwg$.1v4w9ruw1n2x$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1PidncjOa5cWA1DfRVn-1Q@megapath.net>
 <28m5yx3jhzvu$.16u6va8093srl.dlg@40tude.net>
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Conversion and task pointer.
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:42:33 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4952.2800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4952.2800
Message-ID: <auadnUjZq5vQ4U3fRVn-2w@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-PedmdvbBTK3pdrrWV9eDElZYsiht0ZLvfjaHONq5zrSXoQwtoiZgmSUa3nKlAaYetV3woE+xze3gWbJ!bRQUIeL2QiWRnqRsnSYhljz2+baYszlmXJeTyK3CwfluyAVBp32o/Vkw6jTRT4hoXLunR1xeJpb7
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11977
Date: 2005-07-09T20:42:33-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:28m5yx3jhzvu$.16u6va8093srl.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> > No, you should definitely use an interface.
>
> It depends. Tasks are still non-tagged in the sense that you cannot have a
> "task" interface.

You can declare a task interface in Ada 200Y:

    type T_Int is task interface;

I probably should have done that in my example.

> In an interface Who_Am_I can only be a *procedure*, which
> could be then implemented by an entry. But it should an *entry* from the
> beginning if the intent is to have a dispatching entry Who_Am_I called
> using, say, timed entry call.

You are allowed to use the primitive procedures of an interface in a timed
entry call, and they will work as an entry in that case. So while the
*syntax* is that of a procedure, they do not lose their entry
characteristics and still act as an entry.

I wasn't (and am still not) convinced that this is the right design, but it
certainly works and has the needed effects. I think there will be some
confusion from a readability standpoint, but otherwise you can do everything
with such a procedure that you can do with an entry (other than requeue it;
no one can figure out how a dispatching requeue could work - it couldn't
have been allowed if dispatching entries existed, either).

> In that case mix-in will be the only workaround.

Not at all. See above.

                    Randy.