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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to simulate semaphores with Ada's tasks?
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:04:21 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <nptdan$2t8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <35ae841e-5947-44e9-a8d4-479cf40c4277@googlegroups.com>
 <nplg7f$5st$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b1bb0e6-6a87-476a-978f-dbfec7bb638a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 01:04:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d7c030f56102b58a2c16dea977db88bb";
	logging-data="2984"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193Nl+Y6nJTNLnk4blcOepDs5N7bj+WEX8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
In-Reply-To: <7b1bb0e6-6a87-476a-978f-dbfec7bb638a@googlegroups.com>
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.eternal-september.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gGTVflJ1PWH7g1Ym1qK3udYaiok=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:31616
Date: 2016-08-27T18:04:21-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 08/27/2016 02:36 PM, Andrew Shvets wrote:
> 
> My current understanding is that the protected type is a way to encapsulate a
> piece of data and then regulate which values can be assigned its insides
> (similar to how in Java there is a way to create a piece of code where only
> one thread at a time can run at any given moment.)  The example below has 5
> tasks and each one tries to update the same unbounded string.  The goal was
> to create a small application with 5 tasks and each one fighting to update
> the same value.
> 
> Does my description make sense?  Or am I completely off-base?

In general, a protected object encapsulates a set of operations that are
mutually exclusive. Only one call to one operation may proceed at a time. (This
is not strictly correct, but it's close enough, it's simple, and an
implementation that works this way conforms to the standard.) It may also
encapsulate and hide some optional data that the operations operate on.

The PO in your example, as written, implements a standard monitor with a default
initial value for Unbounded_String (the default initial value is ""). A monitor
stores one value; calls to Put a new value overwrite the existing value; calls
to Get the value leave the value unaffected, and future calls to Get can return
the same value. This is sometimes described as having a destructive Put and
non-destructive Get. A queue, on the other hand, has a non-destructive Put and a
destructive Get. Your Empty component serves no purpose. If you had barriers
using Empty as in your comments, then your PO would be a bounded, blocking queue
with a maximum length of 1.

So from that point of view, you seem to understand how to use POs.

There's special syntax for singleton POs like yours:

protected Protected_01 is
   ...
end Protected_01;

This is equivalent to

protected type /anonymous/ is
   ...
end /anonymous/;

Protected_01 : /anonymous/;

If I were implementing the same functionality, I'd probably use String
externally and only use Unbounded_String when needed to store a String value:

protected Protected_String is
   procedure Put (Value : in String);
   function Value return String;
private -- Protected_String
   Current : Unbounded_String;
end Protected_String;

The body would convert as needed.

Looking at the rest of the example, your task is confused. The loop is executed
exactly once, so there's no reason for it. Your select has only a single
alternative, so there's no reason for it. Stripped of the output statements,
it's functionality is

begin
   accept Start ...;
   accept Quit;
   Protected_01.Insert ...;
end;

The default value of an uninitialized Unbounded_String is the null string, so given

V : Unbounded_String;

V's value is "" and there's no reason to explicitly initialize it to that.
However, if you do need to refer to the null string value, you can use
Null_Unbounded_String, which is probably clearer and better than
To_Unbounded_String ("").

There's no guarantee that multiple tasks writing to the same
Ada.Text_IO.File_Type will give you useful results.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Monsieur Arthur King, who has the brain of a duck, you know."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
09