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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4bd6ca8f7a1eb225 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.36.6 with SMTP id m6mr9646033pbj.4.1322851808003; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:50:08 -0800 (PST) Path: lh20ni60028pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.visyn.net!visyn.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.tornevall.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Class with task destructor Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:50:00 -0700 Organization: TornevallNET - http://news.tornevall.net Message-ID: References: <30604696.94.1322013045135.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqzz20> <24938373.1788.1322615481874.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjo5> <05a2f750-fa76-4cd5-9e86-f3a8d22b44fe@s4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 936f122cf3bf0136e44037d33ead5b88 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: 23126d4e3aa9a9329f43217869f421c3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tornevall.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 X-Complaints-Language: Spoken language is english or swedish - NOT ITALIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE! In-Reply-To: <05a2f750-fa76-4cd5-9e86-f3a8d22b44fe@s4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> X-UserIDNumber: 1738 X-Validate-Post: http://news.tornevall.net/validate.php?trace=23126d4e3aa9a9329f43217869f421c3 X-Complaints-Italiano: Non abbiamo padronanza della lingua italiana - se mandate una email scrivete solo in Inglese, grazie X-Posting-User: 0243687135df8c4b260dd4a9a93c79bd Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-12-02T11:50:00-07:00 List-Id: On 12/02/2011 09:20 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > It's not entirely the same, though. In a multi-way entry, if entry > Entry_Call_2 becomes available first, then that entry is accepted and > Entry_Call_1 can no longer be accepted. In the code you've written > above, if Entry_Call_2 is accepted first, but Entry_Call_1 becomes > available before the Entry_Call_2 entry is completed, I believe that > Entry_Call_1 is accepted and an attempt is made to cancel the call to > Entry_Call_2--which probably doesn't succeed unless a requeue is > involved, so that the Entry_Call_2 rendezvous still completes, but the > Entry_Call_1 rendezvous also takes place. I'm not 100% sure I have > the semantics right, but I'm pretty sure the behavior would be > different from a true multi-way entry. Also, I have no problem > believing that since the behavior of a multi-way entry would be > different, the implementation could well be very different from the > implementation necessary to implement asynchronous transfer of > control. I didn't recall the specifics of the Ada-95 proposal, nor am I entirely clear on the semantics of ATC. Will the "then abort" part be aborted when the trigger entry is accepted, or when it completes? I had thought it was the latter, but if you say otherwise then I'm probably wrong. Anyway, the ATC multiple entry call semantics might be useful in some cases. -- Jeff Carter "Hello! Smelly English K...niggets." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 08