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: a07f3367d7,344faf475a6f812a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.10.6 with SMTP id n6mr19751869qan.4.1366758979768; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.49.162 with SMTP id v2mr684474obn.1.1366758979727; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Path: ef9ni12521qab.0!nntp.google.com!gp5no5416305qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns. From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:16:19 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2013-04-23T16:16:19-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:00:20 PM UTC-7, Shark8 wrote: > > > The moral: Whether or not you think anonymous access types are evil, > > > anonymous access types to *tasks* definitely can have some surprising > > > consequences (because of the task termination and dependency rules), > > > and should be avoided. > > Yes; this was surprising. Though this brings up an interesting point: how would you be able to have an array of tasks that have a discriminant? What I said applies to *anonymous* access types, not named access types. You can still get what you want by defining a named access type inside Experiment (or globally in another package); this won't have the same pitfall with task termination. Ada does have a problem with arrays of tasks with discriminants; see http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ai12s/ai12-0061-1.txt?rev=1.1 for a proposed solution, but I doubt that will be part of the language for some time. -- Adam