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-Thread: a07f3367d7,8e1d11d5f7e1eb9b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Status of AdaCL: Ada Class Library
References: 
 <05a58751-7a13-48d6-9080-91322817bfe8@t32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <7ue685FpluU1@mid.individual.net> <op.u8ndnytuz25lew@macpro.krischik.com>
 <hm4ds3$62k$1@munin.nbi.dk>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:23:22 -0500
Message-ID: <u3a0py05h.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mlZPLUKLQwfma+HyVf5924UsF7g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: d336d4b866bbae197caa705186
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9319
Date: 2010-02-25T07:23:22-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> Am 22.02.2010, 02:51 Uhr, schrieb Björn Persson <bjorn@rombobjörn.se>:
>
>> I had intended to switch from Charles to Ada.Containers, but I changed my
>> mind when I learned that Ada.Containers can't even be read by multiple
>  > tasks at once.
>
> For the record, we've studied this several times and have always concluded 
> that hidden synchronization is dangerous. That is, synchronization should be 
> explicit. Beyond that, it is impossible to come up with a reasonable 
> definition of what should be locked -- it really depends on the use of the 
> containers.

I agree with this, but I think the OP was implying that you needed
locking even for read-only access of Ada.Containers from multiple
tasks; is that true? I don't see why it should be; each task declares
its own cursors, which don't interfere with each other.

Of course, there's nothing enforcing the read-only, so this is not
very safe.

-- 
-- Stephe