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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!inka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkz0ej.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkdrf3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ufy6vsyq1.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1xmzi7newnilp.23m3zze8h9yi.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177066583.5876.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <pioojxhb01th.lq5kuqqdsatm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177080147.5876.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <1q1kx2jlcvnuj.ck0711mj4few$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177097829.26685.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <f0b5o3$12a$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <1177235674.13243.48.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:19:33 +0200
Message-ID: <ifwm6ji3p78n$.1wh2qmtbowvew.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:19:33 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8b002ea6.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC==S^KeS72i0Bk:C4l9A;OcOic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAFl8W>\BH3YBo\dQ^dKRKaHDNcfSJ;bb[EIRnRBaCd<MNN]]CN=`IXoKjDKbB[JCdYB
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15219
Date: 2007-04-22T13:19:33+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:54:34 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> If the suggested "record interface" allows programmers to write
> a subprogram that defines what R.A means, then the analog
> *change* for task types will be "type T is interface task ...".
> It will allow programmers to specify what "accessing"
> The_T.A means, i.e. they not only write an acceptor A, but they
> will also be writing what "accept" means. Only be default
> will "accept" fall back to the LRM thing. :-)

Unfortunately that won't work, because "accept" is an implementation, but
interface. A better example of what, I guess, you meant, could be
"selectable interface" for entries, which would define the behavior of the
select statements. But again, unfortunately, there is no obvious way to
abstract the meaning of from the implementation of. The meaning of
concurrency constructs seem to be non-functional... Digressing, I would
guess that there might be fundamental reasons about it.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de