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: a07f3367d7,8e11100f675ea2df
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.66.86.198 with SMTP id r6mr3250219paz.36.1357498037063;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:47:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: asynchronous task communication
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:49:24 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyobhawiez.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <1c2dnd5E6PMDR33NnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<lysj6mwq1i.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="585248293da7adcafb924c79c19cf5ec";
	logging-data="12238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IxQ04ABdnU18k5S0nVhbEKandObgY5No="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QY4oA5ICEdWa2QoX5FNR/7RzBFI=
	sha1:jIIr7o+wGnLvWevon6X91wNmihU=
Path: 
 s9ni89197pbb.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.mccarragher.com!news.grnet.gr!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2012-12-31T11:49:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Is it possible to call an entry point of a task from another task and
>> not wait for the task to finish?
>> I'm thinking of an entry point that would have only _in_ parameters,
>> and which is not expected to fail, but the thread called might be
>> busy, so I'd like to just queue it and go on to something else.  This
>> doesn't appear to be what an "asynchronous select" does, though I'll
>> admit I'm not sure, as I can't tell why they call it
>> asynchronous...timed seems more reasonable than asynchronous,
>
> Requeue[1] (with abort)?

Oops, not useful. The caller task will still block.