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=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 10.224.58.77 with SMTP id f13mr21955161qah.7.1366698771308;
        Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.121.200 with SMTP id lm8mr2605891qeb.5.1366698771272;
 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 ef9ni9516qab.0!nntp.google.com!gp5no5067274qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=193.71.180.107;
 posting-account=P68zsgoAAABKpXKMUuwuUZ_RfBk1kZfB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.71.180.107
References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f90147d5-dcd2-41f0-abf7-9bbecf06cd2d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions
 and Extended-Returns.
From: egilhh <egilhovik@hotmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:32:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2013-04-22T23:32:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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. You can easily see what's happening if you
modify your task like this:

begin
Resource.Write(Text.all & "enter");
delay D + 10.0;
Resource.Write(Text.all & ASCII.HT & Duration'Image(D));


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.

-- 
~egilhh

for those who don't