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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b4b864fa2b61bbba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Parallel Text Corpus Processing with Ada? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:11:00 +0000 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <1194735959.240323.38210@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1t1ab1hzsng9p.101gcl2uomeoy.dlg@40tude.net> <1194821365.830120.106600@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1195083519.791396.162260@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1195161059 16440 62.49.19.209 (15 Nov 2007 21:10:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:10:59 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Azughb7f7sllTTFSnrAgORpsbA= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18427 Date: 2007-11-15T21:11:00+00:00 List-Id: braver writes: > On Nov 14, 1:45 am, Simon Wright wrote: >> You did spot that Ada.Containers aren't task-safe? (ie, you need to >> lock the containers yourself ...) > > Man, that's a problem! What about BCs, are they task-safe? At one point the BCs followed their original C++ source by providing a couple of synchronised forms. I found that for any serious use I couldn't find a one-size-fits-all (well, few-sizes-fit-all perhaps) approach that let me build real apps. Iterators were one problem, applications where the data structure involves multiple containers was another. I did consider some shared-mutex schemes (would have involved something like constraining container instances by access Mutex'Class or some such). But on the whole it seemed that it would be better to require people to but the protection _they_ need round their data.