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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:12923 comp.lang.ada:5265
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ubvax!igor!rutabaga!jls
From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Hiding Concurrency
Message-ID: <jls.671951147@rutabaga>
Date: 18 Apr 91 05:05:47 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.211346.15760@cs.odu.edu>
Sender: news@Rational.COM
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Why did you use semaphores instead of tasking for this problem?
If you had used tasking, your concurrency problems would have
gone away--that is, after all, what tasking is FOR.
--
* The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software *
* engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people.  *
*                                                                           *
* Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services.      *