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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safety of unprotected concurrent operations on constant objects
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:57:57 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lkgnk6$12d$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <slrnlm6mkg.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <7403d130-8b42-43cd-a0f1-53ba34b46141@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmals8.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <lya9aybkxc.fsf@pushface.org> <lk41jr$1vl$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnlmbs1n.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <6c2cd5d4-a44c-4c18-81a3-a0e87d25cd9e@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmcoqd.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <waw9v.109142$f85.65293@fx19.iad> <scy9v.1071029$2N5.142769@fx05.iad>
 <kxy9v.109149$f85.89664@fx19.iad> <lyzjiw7h6c.fsf@pushface.org>
 <fRN9v.204655$Ng5.180587@fx17.iad>
 <t7a0jcl05g1h.11jb75b2jg1l7.dlg@40tude.net> <eT_9v.574$dr.264@fx27.iad>
 <wcctx92ev18.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <6ve3i79bog3t.uojmmyur7v75.dlg@40tude.net> <tdEav.19842$gl6.19122@fx11.iad>
 <toKav.16239$tH.8133@fx31.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1399579078 1101 69.95.181.76 (8 May 2014 19:57:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:57:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19757
Date: 2014-05-08T14:57:57-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Brad Moore" <brad.moore@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:toKav.16239$tH.8133@fx31.iad...
...
> But I think the idea could be carried further. Another property of a 
> subprogram that is important to know is whether it is a blocking call or 
> not. That is another attribute that would be nice to capture in the 
> contract. I think it would be useful to have a Blocking aspect that could 
> be similarly applied to a subprogram specification.

Don't you mean "Potentially_Blocking"? Hardly anything is unconditionally 
blocking. And Ada already has such a concept, which would make a good 
starting point for such an aspect.

                           Randy.