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,de183036289811c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 12:21:21 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Requeue in GNAT 3.14p (Linux)
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wccadpr5b3k.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:20:47 GMT
References: <im01hu8h0m6u108jfu2rfapusepqvnh5v4@4ax.com>
 <ud6unjqkx.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26424
Date: 2002-06-19T19:20:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> You can't have IO in a protected object. Does it hang if you remove the IO ?

But doesn't GNAT claim to support IO in protected objects
(even though the RM says it's a bounded error)?

I don't see anything wrong with that pattern of requeues,
other than the IO.  Unless I'm missing something...

- Bob