LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3

Hello Paulo,

In this snippet of code, I can't understand with the second clause of procMsg/0 is never called if its first clause succeeds.
procMsg/0 call is asynchronous.

:- object(sequential).

:- threaded.

:- public(begin/0).
:- mode(begin, one_or_more).

   begin :- threaded_call(procMsg).

:- public(send/1).
:- mode(send(+msg), one_or_more).

   send(Msg) :- /*(
                         threaded_peek(procMsg), 
                         threaded_exit(procMsg)   % In the hypothesis that alternative solutions of procMsg are infered on threaded_exit/1 cail
                        ;
                         true
                        ), */
                        self(Self),
                        threaded_notify(Self::msg(Msg)).

:- public(end/0).
:- mode(end, one_or_more).

   end :- self(Self),
          threaded_notify(Self::msg(term)),
          threaded_wait(Self::termack).

   procMsg :-
       self(Self),
       threaded_wait(Self::msg(Msg)),
       (
        Msg == term ->
               threaded_notify(Self::termack),
               !
              ;
               Msg
      ),
      writeln('End of the turn.').

    procMsg :-
        writeln('One more ride.'),
        procMsg.

:- end_object.

The object sequential simply process calls via notifications.
As you can see, the second sequential::send/1 call is not processed because the second clause of procMsg/0 is not called in order to rearm processing of the next notification.
Knowing that, sequential::end/0 call logically suspends the caller on thread_wait(sequential::termack).

?- sequential::begin.
true.

?- sequential::send(writeln(toto)).
true.

toto
End of the turn.
?- sequential::send(writeln(toto)).
true.

?- sequential::end.

I'm very curious to know what I'm doing wrong. Must I force the first clauss of procMsg to fail in order to trigger its second clause ?
It would be a non-conforming behaviour, then.
Can you help me, please ?

Good lunch, Paulo.