Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns.

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:32:51 PM UTC-7, egilhh wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 8:27:09 PM UTC+2, Shark8 wrote:

> 
> >       Return Result : Not Null Access Testing:= New Testing(New String'(Input));
> 
> 
> 
> When the anonymous access type goes out of scope, it will block, waiting for 
> the newly created task to complete. 

But why wouldn't that affect Make_EF/Make_ER and Make_NR equally?  

I'm planning on delving into this further to figure out just what the rules are with respect to anonymous access types, task termination, and scope.  You may be right, but I'm not yet convinced.  (I mean, it's possible that this could explain the results with GNAT, but that doesn't mean GNAT is following the language correctly.)

  
> Not everyone has the same hardware as you, and your code may produce 
> different results on less cores or slower computers. Adding a delay 2.0 as
> Dmitry said, will reduce the likelyhood of that happening.

I just don't get this.  It's common for people asking questions about the language to post reduced cases or minimal code, i.e. to post the smallest code they can think of that demonstrates the problem.  This is a good thing, because it lets the rest of us focus on the actual question, rather than on details that are irrelevant to the question.  And everybody here is picking on his example as if this were production code.  Not to mention picking on his capitalization.

Sheesh.

                              -- Adam