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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fac1372a6e25492a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks Date: 1999/12/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 563824847 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <83hu2h$bba$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <83j1g0$ck4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-12-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > All in all, a good rule in Ada 95 is not to use ATC. Do you feel the same way about abort statements? To me, abort statements and ATC seem equally error prone. I wouldn't go so far as to outlaw either one, but it seems to me that if you want to outlaw ATC, you should also want to outlaw abort statements. >... I know > that I generally say that any rule saying "don't use feature > X" is a mistake since the feature would not be in the language > unless it had been carefully thought out and understood to > be useful. I don't really agree with that -- it implies that the language designer was a god. This issue is a good example -- you have every right to express the opinion "don't use ATC", so long as you realize that you are really saying that the language designers made a mistake in putting the feature in in the first place. I don't happen to agree with that, because polling seems too painful in some cases. >... However, in my opinion [not new, I strongly opposed > adding this feature] ATC is NOT a desirable feature in Ada :-) Yes, I remember. ;-) I also remember that many of the anti-ATC reviewers also outlawed abort statements -- but I don't remember your opinion on that point. - Bob