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: 103376,c3c4ae45442f569e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!news.hacking.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: Jacob Sparre Andersen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Text_IO and protected objects (Was: [newbie question] tasks and protected types) Date: 29 Apr 2005 22:28:45 +0200 Organization: hacking.dk - Doing fun stuff with open source Sender: sparre@hugin.crs4.it Message-ID: References: <1114747457.868019.93210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <42720DCD.6030304@mailinator.com> <4272260d$0$30463$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.241.165.41 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: xyzzy.adsl.dk 1114806787 13315 80.241.165.41 (29 Apr 2005 20:33:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hacking.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:33:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10834 Date: 2005-04-29T22:28:45+02:00 List-Id: Egil H. H�vik wrote: > Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > > Adrien Plisson wrote: > > > Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > > > > > > If calls to Ada.Text_IO _are_ potentially blocking operations, > > > > that means that one has to move the calls to a task. > > RM 9.5.1(18): > Certain language-defined subprograms are potentially blocking. In > particular, the subprograms of the language-defined input-output > packages that manipulate files (implicitly or explicitly) are potentially > blocking. That was the paragraph I was looking for. Unfortunately it wasn't in the index under "potentially blocking operation". Now it is (in my printed version). > > I thought entries of protected objects also were "protected > > actions". Unfortunately RM 9.5.1 isn't so clear on that question, > > that I am sure if that is actually the case or not. > > > > RM 9.5.3(8): > ... For a call on an entry of a protected object, a new protected action > is started on the object (see 9.5.1). It was exactly that sentence I was of about the meaning of. I guess your interpretation of it is that entries of protected objects, like their functions and procedures, are protected actions. Thanks. Jacob -- recursive, adj.; see recursive