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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6f69b1cf0f02b9ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-08 15:43:13 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: How can I avoid Using a Semaphore? (long) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:42:13 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 981675791 82063 137.194.161.2 (8 Feb 2001 23:43:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:43:11 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5033 Date: 2001-02-08T18:42:13-05:00 It wasn't a conclusion, it was a question (hence the question mark ('?') at the end of the sentence). It was supposed to mean I was puzzled that I/O was not potentially blocking. I thought I new it was potentially blocking, but when I read 9.5.1 I quit reading at 17 for some reason. I guess because it started talking about bounded errors. For some reason, it seemed like the next paragraph started a new section. I don't know, my brain was failing me. I was tired. But thanks for responding. I would have gotten around to re-reading it eventually, and hopefully I would have noticed it the next time. Thanks Frank -----Original Message----- From: Robert Dewar [mailto:dewar@gnat.com] > So, according to section 9.5.1, doing I/O during a protected > operation is NOT potentially blocking? How do you come to that odd (and wrong) conclusion :-)