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,a046ce7f5ee1fa51
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-04 12:21:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: new_line in a put_line
Date: 04 Dec 2002 20:21:24 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Sender: simon@smaug.pushface.org
Message-ID: <x7vel8x1qnv.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: <8d9suu4d65a91bu1qf9hl0eb9dpo2h8c02@4ax.com>
 <gzrH9.232037$QZ.36359@sccrnsc02>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1039033296 7486 62.49.19.209 (4 Dec 2002 20:21:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:21:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31446
Date: 2002-12-04T20:21:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

tmoran@acm.org writes:

> > The problem as I see it, is of course that one tries to express a
> > CRITICAL SECTION in terms of OBJECTS. This *cannot* be good. The first
> > is about execution flow control the second is about data.
>   Then you should use a task.  Using the lock object is a short, possibly
> faster, idiom to accomplish the purpose.  It's like the "good morning" in
> "Good morning gentlemen.  I have some bad news..."  You are not trying to
> say the morning is a good one, you are trying to say "ok, let's get
> started, I have the floor and want your attention." "Good morning" is
> quicker.
>   It may require some comments to explain what's going on to someone
> unfamiliar with the idiom, but it's a valuable idiom.  A recent thread
> here mentioned using an asm string scan operation in conjunction with
> boolean arrays.  A purist might say that's not what it was intended for,
> but a pragmatist would say it's an excellent idea.

I suppose the tension is between an open protocol, using lock objects,
with the risk that someone forgets to use it, and a closed protocol
which ensures that people do the right thing but requires interfaces
for all the things they need to do.