🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7730@ecs.soton.ac.uk> dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
(Bryan Carpenter) writes:

   In <LLW.91May17095750@corwin.eng.yale.edu> llw@ghostwheel.eng.yale.edu 
   (Louis L. Whitcomb) writes:
   >...

   >The moral of the story: If you use OCCAM2, use explicit protocols -
   >even though they are cumbersome and restrictive.  It is hard to track
   >down bugs without them.

   >Note that ihe implementation of channel communication in the newly
   >released INMOS ANSI C compiler does *not* suffer from this curious
   >design flaw.

   I haven't looked at inmos C very closely.  How do they get round the 
   "design flaw" (if that's what it is)?

   Bryan

Greetings Folks:

  In a previous post, quoted above, I incorrectly asserted that the
channel behavior in question (when sending and receiving processes
disagree on number or size of communication events) differed between
the OCCAM compiler and the new C compiler.  My more learned colleagues
remind me that the same behavior may be demonstrated in either
environment.

  Postings by various authors have covered this topic pretty well.

  The Best,

    -Louis.

--
Louis L. Whitcomb              llw@corwin.eng.yale.edu    ph: (203) 432-4237  
Yale Robotics Laboratory                                  fx: (203) 432-7481 
Department of Electrical Engineering, 1968 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520