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: 103376,e9caf8720058dd5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!oleane.net!oleane!hunter.axlog.fr!nobody From: Jean-Pierre Rosen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: embed accept statement in procedures not possible? Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:12:53 +0200 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: <1178291081.936739.131740@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1178307901.263809.221480@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mailhost.axlog.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: s1.news.oleane.net 1178697671 13680 195.25.228.57 (9 May 2007 08:01:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@oleane.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:01:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) In-Reply-To: <1178307901.263809.221480@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15670 Date: 2007-05-09T09:12:53+02:00 List-Id: Adam Beneschan a �crit : > Actually, though, why is a syntactic rule necessary (as opposed to a > run-time check)? > 1) In general, Ada enforces static checking rather than dynamic checking, especially when (like here) the problem is really structural 2) There would be a distributed cost. Any accept statement would need to access, at least Current_Task, and (believe it or not) this can be costly in some environments. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr