Re: Feature suggestion: different task schedules

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 18/07/2017 22:09, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:okkcgc$1m31$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 18/07/2017 02:09, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> ...
>>> And most important of all -- what problem
>>> needs to be solved.
>>
>> A co-routine with task interface lacking task overhead.
> 
> I hate to sound like a broken record, but that's a solution, not a problem.
> One would need to explain what problem(s) can't be reasonably solved with
> the existing features of Ada that could be solved with a co-routine. (And a
> purely performance argument is by far the weakest IMHO; very few programs
> are really performance bound, and most of those would value more tasking.)

It is not performance argument. It is it the first line design argument 
(control flow inversion) as I explained in another post.

I admit that I don't understand the OP proposal. It is not sufficiently 
described and scheduling is not single issue here. Not in the cases I 
have in mind.

A task based solution is non-starter for two reasons.

One is that it is not composable. I expect a co-routine proposal to 
offer a possibility to implement stacked layered protocols. I don't see 
how that would be possible on task basis. A protocol implementation may 
not be a task object.

Another reason is design and OS constraints. Protocols must be handled 
by worker tasks. Number of tasks <<< number of connections, e.g. number 
of sockets.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de