Re: Private extension of a synchronized interface

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lyo976mv2j.fsf@pushface.org...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
>> What I'd suggest in this case is to create a self-testing example as a
>> potential ACATS test. I'd guess that a case like this doesn't happen
>> in the ACATS, but this a fundemental enough capabilitity that is makes
>> sense for an example to be in the test suite.
>
> The only C test occurences of 'synchronized' are in c950001 and c954027;
> both use class-wide objects or accesses.

Makes sense. This case has to do with the 3.9.3 rules and how they apply to 
protected (and presumably task) interfaces. I doubt very much that was 
tested, or is even on the list of possible things to test. But of course 
real Ada user bugs are always of interest. Especially if they are rather 
fundemental to the feature. (Too bad I don't have a spell check on this 
reader. ;-)

                         Randy.