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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Task safe containers? Help needed. Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:25:50 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lKHBldubgAWx1EqbQpQ5LQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-US Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48413 Date: 2017-10-10T09:25:50+02:00 List-Id: On 09/10/2017 23:54, Randy Brukardt wrote: > If some of the operations are functions, and you have an up-to-date > compiler, then use aspect Exclusive_Functions so that the mutual exclusion > extends to the functions as well as the procedures in the protected object. Interesting. BTW, if protected types were declared as a normal types without ugly C++-ish brackets, then we could simply have it passed in-out mode. Functions are now allowed to have this. Or it could be passed as a non-constant anonymous access. Both would naturally imply "update-exclusion", no aspect ever needed. > Otherwise, functions aren't *officially* exclusive, so you have to use all > procedures for proper exclusion. I see it as an advantage, actually. A mutex-based solution could deploy read-write mutex to achieve the same effect. Functions would take mutext in the read-only mode. Procedures would use the full-access mode. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de