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: 103376,3d841c019952cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-02 07:15:49 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.tufts.edu!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: ADA Tasks User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:15:08 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31344 Date: 2002-12-02T15:15:08+00:00 List-Id: khurmie@hotmail.com (Khuram Imtiaz) writes: > Is it possible to have tasks which contain both (entries/accepts and > calls).Could this be a bad idea? If so, why? can someone explain it > with a pseudo code. I would appreciate your help in this regard. Yes, a task is allowed to contain both entries/accepts and entry calls. There is nothing particularly "bad" about it, if it meets your needs. For example, task A might call task B's entry, and as part of the work in (or after) the accept statement in B, B might call an entry of task C. However, protected objects are often a better way to communicate than rendezvous, because they decouple the communicating tasks. They are also more efficient on many implementations. - Bob