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: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-10 14:16:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.telebyte.nl!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <5ad0dd8a.0404090512.15af2908@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0404091828.6e79bb4e@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0404100735.7b2a8317@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1081631765 25081 134.91.1.34 (10 Apr 2004 21:16:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:16:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6959 Date: 2004-04-10T21:16:05+00:00 List-Id: Wojtek Narczynski wrote: : raise Bang( Hard, Urgent, -1); Isn't this just a work around a message passing technique? If I have a task that may fail in a few hundred ways, and I know another service task that can deal with these errors, I just say attention_please( Hard, Urgent, -1); to this task, and then abort the first, for example. Absent tasks, if I jump long with parameters, doesn't this parameter passing mechanism for "exceptional gotos" create a situation where program flow is just as hard to follow, or even more so because the tasking protocol won't be taken into account?