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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3446063322b22cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Thick vs. Thin bindings
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:25:21 +0100
Organization: None
Message-ID: <1277697.NJH4qpXlWW@linux1.krischik.com>
References: <41a746a0@x-privat.org>
Reply-To: martin@krischik.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1101544320 03 16940 wZK3XmNvhULdUg2 041127 08:32:00
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: SS7bqrZ6oe6C47t97Cq5PCmPkZust5vVI3p-12+WL5xc3Apl1gbSUc
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6542
Date: 2004-11-27T08:25:21+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeff Houck wrote:

> As I continue to evaluate Ada in the role of a gamephilosophyge, I've
> run across references to "thick" and "thin" bindings and I'm a bit
> confused.
> My initial design goals are to keep the number of external dependancies
> to a minimum with most of the support code written in Ada. I would like
> the code interfaces to be as simple as possible to implement for a
> designer. I believe this would necessitate a "thick" binding. Is that
> correct? Would anyone like to elaborate on the pros and cons of these
> two binding methodologies? Further reading material? Tutorials? Thx!

A thin binding just translates the C calls into Ada calls but the C'ish
philosophy is still visible. One examle of C'ish philosophy is the '\0' at
the end of strings.

Example for a thin binding to memset:

   procedure memset (
      S : in Interfaces.C.void_ptr;
      C : in Interfaces.C.int;
      N : in Interfaces.C.size_t);

   pragma Import (
      Convention    => C,
      Entity        => memset,
      External_Name => "memset");

A think binding translates the philosophy of the original language to Ada as
well.

A think binding to memset could be a generic procedure (template in C++
talk):

generic
   type A_Type    is private;
   type A_Access is access all A_Type;
procedure Mem_Set    
      Value : in A_Access ;
      Fill : in Short_Short_Integer);

I usualy suggest to build a think binding on top of a thin bindung.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com