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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.107.199.65 with SMTP id x62mr5478966iof.130.1507540716350;
        Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.33.247 with SMTP id s110mr130941otb.16.1507540716320;
 Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!k70no1041500itk.0!news-out.google.com!u132ni1557ita.0!nntp.google.com!l196no1035309itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 02:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ordibc$7ku$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=85.167.239.40;
 posting-account=bPTmZAoAAAC_6HP9XLKB9aAAxBa6BuOR
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.167.239.40
References: <a153a7e8-4108-4c81-b211-a59c380113d5@googlegroups.com>
 <orci8c$mpl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <e85dc912-3146-487c-aa02-a7e63f86375e@googlegroups.com>
 <ordibc$7ku$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e0537531-4eaf-428f-88ee-5b77475e2873@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Task safe containers? Help needed.
From: reinert <reinkor@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:18:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3550200472
X-Received-Bytes: 2775
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48402
Date: 2017-10-09T02:18:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Thanks, will test out options...

reinert

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:05:04 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2017-10-08 17:10, reinert wrote:
> 
> > About your first option: Putting the containers in a protected
> > object  makes the container functions "private" and not directly available
> > outside the protected object. Right?
> 
> Which is good, since they are unsafe.
> 
> > But your other options also somehow complicates :-)
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> > A compromise seems to be necessary :-)
> 
> There is no compromise, each method has its use.
> 
> > Maybe the first option anyway
> > facilitates cleanest code?
> 
> No. The cleanest code would be per delegation. Ada has none. Then there 
> are issues with interface functions while most relevant synchronization 
> mechanisms considered mutating. The Rosen's trick is used to work that 
> around. A problem for monitor (#2.b) is to have an unconstrained result, 
> since task entries cannot return such.
> 
> > There must be a reason for the invention of
> > protected types.
> 
> The reason was to add an OO view on synchronization as a complement to 
> the procedural view tasks offer.
> 
> The implementation provided by protected objects was chosen to be most 
> efficient, powerful, safe, verifiable and universal. Which comes with 
> certain limitations.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakov
> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de