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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8e1d11d5f7e1eb9b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Status of AdaCL: Ada Class Library
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <c07f9ac9-9361-4966-bd12-a35cb5729c31@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <05a58751-7a13-48d6-9080-91322817bfe8@t32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
	<7ue685FpluU1@mid.individual.net> <op.u8ndnytuz25lew@macpro.krischik.com>
	<hm4ds3$62k$1@munin.nbi.dk> <u3a0py05h.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
	<7unf1hF7anU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.30.110.254
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1267129179 17501 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2010 20:19:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:19:39 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.30.110.254;
	posting-account=_RXWmAoAAADQS3ojtLFDmTNJCT0N2R4U
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_2; en-us)
	AppleWebKit/531.21.8 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Safari/531.21.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9326
Date: 2010-02-25T12:19:39-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 25, 2:16=A0pm, "Alex R. Mosteo" <alejan...@mosteo.com> wrote:

> Never though of this before, but even wrapping a call to that in a protec=
ted
> function would be dangerous, since protected functions are concurrent? An=
d
> that's a procedure with only "in" arguments, which would be callable from
> such a function.
>
> Am I right here?

I believe you are: LRM 9.5.1(1), "protected functions provide
concurrent read-only access to the data".

My normal mode of operation is to wrap the use of the Container (OK,
Booch Component!) in a package and use a lock to ensure single-
threaded access, with the Container outside any PO.