From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: more on safe-loop alternative
Date: 1996/04/05
Date: 1996-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.828705553@schonberg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9604041927.AA07653@most
An obvious objection to using delay is that it measures wall clock time,
not CPU time. Pity a poor low priority task that never got control but
after five minutes is killed on the grounds of an infinite recursion
that has run amuck ("but, but, I didn't even get to call the recursive
routne *once*)
Frankly I find the advice in the AQS a bit bogus. The best defence against
run away recursion is careful reasoning about your program!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-04-05 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-04-04 0:00 more on safe-loop alternative W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)
1996-04-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1996-04-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox