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-Thread: 103376,534dd301375921ac
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.228.227 with SMTP id sl3mr582830pbc.5.1340305446019;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 l9ni4170pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Text_IO.Put_Line() thread-safe?
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:04:00 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jrvr74$41h$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc395y57gm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <e9ck9h3fhhdz$.14u3tg094wfed.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc395xycfl.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1340305445 4145 69.95.181.76 (21 Jun 2012 19:04:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:04:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Date: 2012-06-21T14:04:00-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wcc395xycfl.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
>> It would be nice if the exception would propagate in the task's master, 
>> but
>> that is impossible without a rendezvous or asynchronous control transfer 
>> on
>> the master's side.
>
> Probably the best default behavior would be to stop the program
> with an error message, just like what happens for an unhandled
> exception in the main program.  If you don't like that, you would
> program something else.

Wouldn't that be really expensive on a multicore processor (or, in Ada 83 
think, a multiprocessor)? Maybe it could be defined in terms of "abort", but 
that seems like a heavy mechanism.

> But as a default behavior, silently dropping exceptions on the
> floor is a wrong language design.

I agree. The problem is everything else is worse in some way. ;-)

                                    Randy.