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!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx23.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brad Moore <brad.moore@shaw.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safety of unprotected concurrent operations on constant objects
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> <lkgnk6$12d$1@loke.gir.dk>
In-Reply-To: <lkgnk6$12d$1@loke.gir.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <lvXav.454$pa5.240@fx23.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.219.148
X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1399604305 68.145.219.148 (Fri, 09 May 2014 02:58:25 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 02:58:25 UTC
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 20:58:22 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 2349
X-Received-Body-CRC: 463927772
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19760
Date: 2014-05-08T20:58:22-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14-05-08 01:57 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "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.
>
>
Yes, I really meant Potentially_Blocking