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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e8e240cec570cdf2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-24 02:20:01 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!lutz From: lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Multiple entry tasks Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Organization: IKS GmbH Jena Message-ID: References: <9bkevj$61k$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9bkqud$a5b$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 988103978 30566 217.17.192.37 (24 Apr 2001 09:19:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:19:38 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:6880 Date: 2001-04-24T09:19:38+00:00 List-Id: * Robert A Duff wrote: >Under the Priority_Queueing policy, the entries are prioritized -- you >write the higher-priority accepts before the lower-priority ones. Task >priorities take precedence over entry priorities, however. I'm not >sure whether that's what the original poster wanted, but if all the >tasks are the same priority, then the order of the accept statements >determines the priority of the entries. Thank you. That's the last one of a lot of very useful hints. I came to the conclusion, that in every situation where a posting to cla is necessary the code design is wrong anyway. So postings to cla are a sure sign of bad programming ;-)