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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,667de268f02e30c1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: task pointer
Date: 1997/11/01
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680000111970952560001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 286478634
References: <344AA999.1AB2@eelab.su.oz.au>
Distribution: inet
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-11-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <344AA999.1AB2@eelab.su.oz.au>, Paul Van Gorp
<paulvg@eelab.su.oz.au> wrote:

You could just declare them as nested tasks, ie

task T1 is
   entry E1;
end;

task body T1 is

   task T2 is
      entry E2;
   end;

   task body T2 is
   begin
      ...
   end;

begin
...
end;

Won't that give each task visibility to the other?

One sign that you really have a single abstraction is that the 2 tasks each
call each other (a dangerous thing though - easy to get deadlock).  The
nesting captures this dependency nicely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271