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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c8c049083de75c04
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: more on safe-loop alternative
Date: 1996/04/05
Message-ID: <dewar.828705553@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145942184
references: <9604041927.AA07653@most>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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!