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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
From: Reto Buerki <reet@codelabs.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Barrier re-evaluation issue with GNAT 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:41:40 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <h9q3so$tk7$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <h9g8mf$v4f$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <qheeig65rowe.1x18w150lpl1q.dlg@40tude.net>
 <sv%um.246578$ZN.73934@newsfe23.iad>
 <rcfj2mz9pjnu$.pem92yd9ybip.dlg@40tude.net> <389i9h.ik5.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
 U2FsdGVkX1+OzGoJ9/xAGNY7+TKgVcz8/6Tzho10LF5HOhStwWzTetNtv3pmq/2j7hUC0ZqKdDvNBacHv2lq1suiavPzp+CDOiFOdkTdLpuPwX10gdF4M8+Qlgy+KMR+V1Xokui8Yv+cyEorTJfSBA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eternal-september.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:41:28 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <389i9h.ik5.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+mdugpmW1oU5pupPhbrmbnHo1IT+XzdPw=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HRMHlVSoRHUbrJPVWDybdx8KrBc=
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8510
Date: 2009-09-28T12:41:40+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
>> Timing_Events does not have any advantages over delay or asynchronous
>> transfer of control. I guess it was provided for some low-level stuff like
>> interrupts from hardware timers. However there was already a support for
>> interrupts mapped into protected operations, so it really puzzles me why
>> Timing_Events were added.
>>
> The answer is easy: because users asked for it. Of course, it is
> useless, but some people don't feel easy with tasks, and want to use the
> kind of tools they are accustomed to.
> 
> So rather than painfully answering requests like "why doesn't Ada have
> that feature", it was simpler to say "what's the heck" and provide it.
> If you don't like it (I am also in that case), don't use it.

Could you elaborate the negative aspects of Ada.Real_Time.Timing_Events?

We found using timing events was straightforward and lightweight.