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: border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: confusion about message passing between the tasks Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:40:32 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="214e2226c9a2cb4f71713357be0d6925"; logging-data="29173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xHYbcZlXd/iI76kgulf1e" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:tRVqqX50+eTC2VGN5Xc+PaChta0= Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190111 Date: 2014-10-27T08:40:32+01:00 List-Id: Le 26/10/2014 21:27, Robert A Duff a écrit : > In Ada 83, I found that in between every pair of communicating tasks, > I wanted to add a passive "buffer" task or some such. I'm happy > to use a PO there. This may be the core point where we disagree. Presumably, you are more "mailbox" oriented than "client-server" oriented. This is perfectly respectable, but not everybody sees things this way, and if you design with a client-server model, the rendezvous is much more appropriate. I don't argue that YOU need mainly POs; just that other designs need rendezvous, and Ada is supposed to support all programming methodologies. -- J-P. Rosen Adalog 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00 http://www.adalog.fr