* Re: 'IMAGE
@ 1992-04-09 20:53 Mark A Biggar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark A Biggar @ 1992-04-09 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <1714@nic.cerf.net> sss@nic.cerf.net (Marlene M. Eckert) writes:
>Hello.
>Should the following 'image of an uninitialized
>enumeration type raise CONSTRAINT_ERROR?
>In similar situations our compiler has printed all
>blanks, garbage, and even readable garbage. Of
>course, the answer is probably in the LRM somewhere...
>---------------------------------------------------------
>with Text_IO; use Text_IO;
>procedure Image is
>type Colors is (Red, Green, Blue);
>My_Color : Colors; -- Not initialized!
>begin
> Put_Line(Colors'image(My_Color)); -- Legal?
>end Image;
Using an undefined value like that makes your program erronious and it can do
anything it damn well pleases, i.e., raise CONSTRAINT_ERROR, Crash the CPU,
Erase your hard disk, even as someone put it in comp.std.c in a similar
discussion cause miniture deamons to blow out your nose!
There has been quite a lot of discussion about this in the Ada9X reviewers
group and Ada9x may well contain something that tightens this up to at
least a bounded error (the program is still in error, it is not required that
the error be detected, but the set of allowed actions is finite and
specified by the standard.)
--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* What exactly is the licensing situation with Gnat?
@ 2014-11-10 9:30 Hubert
2014-11-10 11:09 ` What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-10 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
So I am relatively new to Ada and I never really looked much into all
the Open Source license models that are out there, so I don't know much
about the differences. I'm trying to understand the particular situation
that Adacore's Gnat package has.
Can someone please tell me if I am wrong here:
A) The compiler is basically GPL meaning anybody can copy it.
B) The Ada and Gnat libraries that come with it are also GPL so if you
use them to write a program and give that program away you must also
give away the source code.
C) If you buy the Pro version your receive the runtime libraries with a
different license that allows you to sell a program written with them
without giving out the code.
D) Here I am not sure: If you write a program that does not use the Ada
and Gnat libraries, then you are not obliged to give away the source
code as well since you dont use any GPL licensed code in your program?
E) What about the Ada.Standard library which is a pseudo library and
built into the compiler? One has to use elements from that library,
there's no way around that.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
@ 2014-11-10 11:09 ` Hubert
2014-11-10 11:19 ` Markus Schöpflin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-10 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ok, thanks everyone, I see that it is really complicated when you get
down to the details, but in principle it's like if you sell a program,
you need the Pro version or you use the FSF version which is most likely
older and may not have all the feature or current bug fixes.
The good thing is that the GPL version allows me to play around and see
if I can incorporate Ada tools into our project and then buy the pro
version later, if it turns out to be useful.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-10 11:09 ` What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Hubert
@ 2014-11-10 11:19 ` Markus Schöpflin
2014-11-10 15:45 ` David Botton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Markus Schöpflin @ 2014-11-10 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
Am 10.11.2014 um 12:09 schrieb Hubert:
[...]
> The good thing is that the GPL version allows me to play around and see if I
> can incorporate Ada tools into our project and then buy the pro version later,
> if it turns out to be useful.
I would start with the FSF version and use the AdaCore versions only when you
encounter bugs that are not easily worked around.
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-10 11:19 ` Markus Schöpflin
@ 2014-11-10 15:45 ` David Botton
2014-11-11 0:09 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Botton @ 2014-11-10 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I would start with the FSF version and use the AdaCore versions only when you
> encounter bugs that are not easily worked around.
Despite my open disdain for AdaCore's switch in licenses of their pubic versions to a GPL virus run time. I would say that it depends on platform and what you are looking to do if it makes sense to start with the FSF version or not.
On Windows for example until MinGW is updated to a more recent compiler and includes GPR tools you are probably better off with the GPL version regardless of use.
Based on what you wrote in previous posts, since your project would later on be looking at support best to start with the GPL version regardless of platform in my opinion.
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-10 15:45 ` David Botton
@ 2014-11-11 0:09 ` Hubert
2014-11-11 13:37 ` john
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-11 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 11/10/2014 7:45 AM, David Botton wrote:
>> I would start with the FSF version and use the AdaCore versions only when you
>> encounter bugs that are not easily worked around.
>
> Despite my open disdain for AdaCore's switch in licenses of their pubic versions to a GPL virus run time. I would say that it depends on platform and what you are looking to do if it makes sense to start with the FSF version or not.
>
> On Windows for example until MinGW is updated to a more recent compiler and includes GPR tools you are probably better off with the GPL version regardless of use.
>
> Based on what you wrote in previous posts, since your project would later on be looking at support best to start with the GPL version regardless of platform in my opinion.
>
> David Botton
>
Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment. I
have no experience whatsoever with Emacs or Vim and I am somewhat
addicted to having a hierarchy browser (I know we wrote big programs in
the 90s without it but I couldn't imagine that anymore). I want to take
a serious look at the new Slickedit version when it is released and then
I hope I can use that to edit, compile and debug, since I'm having my
problems with the debug environment in GPS it is a bit cumbersome with 2
or 3 steps necessary to start a program under the debugger.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-11 0:09 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-11 13:37 ` john
2014-11-11 22:52 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: john @ 2014-11-11 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment.
I would recommend using the GPS editor of Adacore GNAT GPL in combination with GNAT FSF as the compiler. That's what I do, and at least on Ubuntu it works fine. Just remember not to use any libraries provided by Adacore's GNAT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-11 13:37 ` john
@ 2014-11-11 22:52 ` Hubert
2014-11-11 23:10 ` David Botton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-11 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 11/11/2014 5:37 AM, john@peppermind.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment.
>
> I would recommend using the GPS editor of Adacore GNAT GPL in combination with GNAT FSF as the compiler. That's what I do, and at least on Ubuntu it works fine. Just remember not to use any libraries provided by Adacore's GNAT.
>
I never thought about that combination, I thought you have to use the
compiler that comes with GPS but it makes sense.
Speaking of this, what are the libraries that are specific to the GPL
version? I know the Ada libraries are the language standard, so I assume
all the Gnat libraries are extensions provided by Adacore?
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-11 22:52 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-11 23:10 ` David Botton
2014-11-11 23:25 ` Alan Jump
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Botton @ 2014-11-11 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
They essentially virused the standard Ada runtime. It is certainly a question if it would hold in truth legally, but basically even with no runtime they would claim your resulting executable is GPL.
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-11 23:10 ` David Botton
@ 2014-11-11 23:25 ` Alan Jump
2014-11-12 0:50 ` David Botton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alan Jump @ 2014-11-11 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:10:26 PM UTC-8, David Botton wrote:
> They essentially virused the standard Ada runtime. It is certainly a question if it would hold in truth legally, but basically even with no runtime they would claim your resulting executable is GPL.
>
> David Botton
"Virused"?
'Splain, please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-11 23:25 ` Alan Jump
@ 2014-11-12 0:50 ` David Botton
2014-11-12 1:15 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Botton @ 2014-11-12 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Some viruses can be good, some viruses can be bad, and some viruses that are good are being abused.
By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code, etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e. regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.
That may be a good thing for OS tools even compiler tools, etc. perhaps you may even prefer the GPL, but when placed in a compiler it is an abuse designed to make an open source compiler Shareware at best.
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 0:50 ` David Botton
@ 2014-11-12 1:15 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 1:24 ` David Botton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-12 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 11/11/2014 16:50 PM, David Botton wrote:
> Some viruses can be good, some viruses can be bad, and some viruses that are good are being abused.
>
> By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code, etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e. regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.
>
> That may be a good thing for OS tools even compiler tools, etc. perhaps you may even prefer the GPL, but when placed in a compiler it is an abuse designed to make an open source compiler Shareware at best.
>
> David Botton
>
Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about the
GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that the
thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and not the
compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL compiler is
GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled program is also
GPL.
The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in
the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.
Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the posts
regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How is
the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server application
that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL version?
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 1:15 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-12 1:24 ` David Botton
2014-11-12 8:12 ` Simon Wright
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Botton @ 2014-11-12 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about the
> GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that the
> thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and not the
> compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL compiler is
> GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled program is also
> GPL.
No, the GNAT GPL is a "special" case designed to virus software. The FSF versions do not contain code that would do that and so even though the compiler is GPL it does not produce executables that would be under the GPL unless you linked in some library that did that.
> The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in
> the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
> thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
> new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.
it is possible I am wrong about the binding code, but I am under the impression they hold that anything produced by their public compiler is GPL unless you have GNAT PRO.
> Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the posts
> regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
> understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
> server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How is
> the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server application
> that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL version?
Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your binaries only using them server side you do not have to share the source.
Honestly I am actually a fan of the GPL and hope you will when you can share the sources and of course changes and extensions to Gnoga as well.
The FSF versions do work with Gnoga as well. (For windows MinGW will be updated soon and will work and for Linux you need for now Debian sid)
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 1:24 ` David Botton
@ 2014-11-12 8:12 ` Simon Wright
2014-11-12 8:35 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Wright @ 2014-11-12 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:
>> Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the
>> posts regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
>> understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
>> server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How
>> is the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server
>> application that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL
>> version?
>
> Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your
> binaries only using them server side you do not have to share the
> source.
You might be interested in the Affero GPL?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 8:12 ` Simon Wright
@ 2014-11-12 8:35 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 9:25 ` Mark Carroll
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-12 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
> You might be interested in the Affero GPL?
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
No I'm not writing anything that I want to protect for myself. I'm just
trying to understand what the situation with Ada is since we are
discussing a port to Ada as a possibility, however that would still be a
few years in the future to be realistic, for the time being it is just
inhouse tool programming, but I am always in favor of checking out
feasibility first before I spend a considerable amount of time getting
into a matter only to find out that a simple issue makes my whole effort
obsolete. That's why I usually ask for the price of a program before I
download the trial version and if I don't get that info, I know it's
because the price is exorbitant.
I know Ada would be well suited for our project from a language point of
view, the question is now what about the license situation. In general
the move (meaning getting the pro license) would only be feasible if our
project in the current version generates enough money (which we won't
know before next year), since I know the price is in the 10K$ range. If
not I will take a hard look at the FSF version, what puts me off for the
time being is the comments I read so far that the FSF version is behind
the GPL version, however I don't know yet in what particular way, if
it's missing language features, missing libraries, having bugs that are
fixed in the GPL version etc.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 8:35 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-12 9:25 ` Mark Carroll
2014-11-12 9:37 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Carroll @ 2014-11-12 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hubert <herrdoktor@fumanchu.com> writes:
> If not I will take a hard look at the FSF version, what puts me off
> for the time being is the comments I read so far that the FSF version
> is behind the GPL version, however I don't know yet in what particular
> way, if it's missing language features, missing libraries, having bugs
> that are fixed in the GPL version etc.
I also have the impression that there's a lack of assurance that
bug-fixes, etc. will keep flowing to the FSF version, and there's a
shortage of cheap or free alternatives for compiling closed code?
(It's not like I am funded by CPFF contracts from DoD BAAs.)
I had been looking at creating an GUI application that would have to
work well on Windows, so I also have a bit of work to do in
understanding more about the dependency on MinGW for that, but maybe
that's all transparent and wonderful, just new to me.
I don't need to make language decisions right now, but all this is
keeping me nervously on the fence; I don't want to commit to a direction
for which affordable support is in danger of withering and, while I had
thought it a good idea to use a coming project to learn and try out Ada,
it is not like I am having to develop near-real-time embedded systems or
suchlike.
-- Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 9:25 ` Mark Carroll
@ 2014-11-12 9:37 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 10:31 ` jm.tarrasa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-12 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I don't need to make language decisions right now, but all this is
> keeping me nervously on the fence; I don't want to commit to a direction
> for which affordable support is in danger of withering and, while I had
> thought it a good idea to use a coming project to learn and try out Ada,
> it is not like I am having to develop near-real-time embedded systems or
> suchlike.
>
> -- Mark
>
Well from what I have learned so far, I see the situation as follows:
- If you want to make and release full GPL software you're good to go
with the GPL version of Ada
- If you write code for Missiles or Nuclear Power Plants, you're good to
go with the Pro version
- If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of
software that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are
somewhat hanging in the air.
It is my opinion that what is missing is some sort of intermediate
license for people who just want to write small scale applications and
don't have the security requirements of big projects adn thus don't need
the support that Adacore offers. Something like Turbo Pascal in the past
or maybe even Visual Studio in the Personal Edition or so.
Personally I wouldn't mind paying a few 100$ right now for a license
that would allow me to write closed source applications even if I get no
support or just some way to report bugs which may or may not be fixed
later. I don't need a minuteman response if I find a bug with Ada (which
is more than unlikely to happen anyway). the current Pro license is
something I consider but only given our particular situation where we
sell a product first and then rewrite part or all of it in Ada and have
the money to get the license. I would not consider it if I were to start
a brand new project of which I have no idea how the sales situation will be.
So something like a personal license that would be nice to have.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 9:37 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-12 10:31 ` jm.tarrasa
2014-11-12 10:44 ` Hubert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: jm.tarrasa @ 2014-11-12 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
> - If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of
> software that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are
> somewhat hanging in the air.
10K$/seat makes no sense. Obviously Adacore is not interested in you.
There is a market of deep pockets for Ada (so far), but there is no market of small Ada developers. They have locked customers with deep pockets and no competence, so they are not interested in other market.
You could argue that such market is shrinking and could die.
So?
Gnat investment was recovered long ago (did they invest or was DoD's investment?). Now they have no advertising costs, almost no development costs (what they have? a developer? two?) whatever they get from deep pockets is almost net profit.
Creating a market for Ada small developers would mean to create an ecosystem, compete against other languages. Why should they invest such amount of resources in an uncertain adventure?
so, when the deep pockets market die, they'll let Gnat die. You are not in the equation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 10:31 ` jm.tarrasa
@ 2014-11-12 10:44 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 22:53 ` Randy Brukardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hubert @ 2014-11-12 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
> There is a market of deep pockets for Ada (so far), but there is no market of small Ada developers. They have locked customers with deep pockets and no competence, so they are not interested in other market.
I agree here. I guess though it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.
without software to get one started with Ada, there is no incentive to
use Ada over C++ but without little guys using Ada, there is little
incentive to write software others could use.
The Gnoga project might be something to get people started though. Part
of what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working very well
for me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and looked not
very user friendly, so my conclusion was without a decent User Interface
library it makes little sense for me to invest more time.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 10:44 ` Hubert
@ 2014-11-12 22:53 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-12 23:21 ` David Botton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2014-11-12 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Hubert" <herrdoktor@fumanchu.com> wrote in message
news:aSG8w.567817$Q61.266688@fx13.iad...
...
> The Gnoga project might be something to get people started though. Part of
> what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working very well for
> me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and looked not very
> user friendly, so my conclusion was without a decent User Interface
> library it makes little sense for me to invest more time.
Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.) That
locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular support
for GNAT are not really affordable.
One of the reasons we built Claw was to provide a Windows interface that
would work on any Ada 95 compiler for Windows, not just GNAT. That requires
displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 22:53 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-11-12 23:21 ` David Botton
2014-11-14 4:51 ` Randy Brukardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Botton @ 2014-11-12 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
> on other Ada compilers
Not true. Janus is the only Windows compiler with an issue.
There was an ABI issue with using Janus that was too much effort for me to consider as a volunteer effort for a non Open Source compiler, however, GnatCOM was used on Aonix OpenAda and in Rational's Ada compiler. Privately I can give you a list of projects where I know it was used if you like not on GNAT.
I do not know if GWindows was used on other compilers, but other than the fact that I tend to use Object'Img there is nothing GNAT specific about the project. Since GNAT is the only open source compiler, it is the only one I choose to support until there are others.
> That requires displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.
I think that you confuse Open Source developers with "Hobbyest", that is usually not the case at all.
GnatCOM was a professional supported product by GNAT.
GWindows is used as a professional product by fortune 500 companies. I didn't go through with my plan 10 years ago with bringing Ada to the business sector because of license changes in GNAT to the public version and various other issues. Using FSF compilers in those days was not a big option.
There is nothing in Gnoga other than the use again of Object'Img preventing it from being used on Janus if it ever gets updated to Ada 2012. I'd be happy to help you do the work to replace AWS if needed with your own implementation of Websockets, etc.
I think that for many people they have not "figured" out how to make Open Source work to their advantage. It has in my career.
I'd be happy to talk to you privately any time about how to make Janus work in an Open Source environment provided you could open it. If you can't perhaps we can talk about options for a new Open Source compiler. I really liked Janus.
Your CLAW Open Source version came too late, if it was a year before I probably would have forked it and used it instead of created GWindows.
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-12 23:21 ` David Botton
@ 2014-11-14 4:51 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-15 17:32 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2014-11-14 4:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
"David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message
news:19fa65d4-72c9-44ab-b44b-4ea0929c18f2@googlegroups.com...
...
>There is nothing in Gnoga other than the use again of Object'Img preventing
>it
>from being used on Janus if it ever gets updated to Ada 2012.
Semi-related to this is that we approved Obj'Image as a language-defined
attribute, to be included in the 2015 Ada Corrigendum. [AdaCore told us that
they had used 'Img only because the language would not allow them to change
Image that way. The ARG has no such limitations. ;-)] So there should be
little reason to use the GNAT extension going forward. Of course, I don't
know when that will appear in GNAT or other compilers, but it's unlikely to
be much work and it's obviously used a lot, so I expect it to be relatively
quick (at least in compilers that are still actively developed; it'll be a
fairly high priority for Janus/Ada, because it is so handy).
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
2014-11-14 4:51 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-11-15 17:32 ` Florian Weimer
2014-11-15 19:58 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Georg Bauhaus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2014-11-15 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
* Randy Brukardt:
> Semi-related to this is that we approved Obj'Image as a language-defined
> attribute, to be included in the 2015 Ada Corrigendum. [AdaCore told us that
> they had used 'Img only because the language would not allow them to change
> Image that way. The ARG has no such limitations. ;-)]
Did they drop leading space characters while they were at it? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?)
2014-11-15 17:32 ` Florian Weimer
@ 2014-11-15 19:58 ` Georg Bauhaus
2014-11-18 0:39 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-19 13:46 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Brian Drummond
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2014-11-15 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 15.11.14 18:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Randy Brukardt:
>
>> Semi-related to this is that we approved Obj'Image as a language-defined
>> attribute, to be included in the 2015 Ada Corrigendum. [AdaCore told us that
>> they had used 'Img only because the language would not allow them to change
>> Image that way. The ARG has no such limitations. ;-)]
>
> Did they drop leading space characters while they were at it? :-)
Of course not, they know about the possibility of a '-', and how
are you going to write orderly column layout if in Ada there is no space!
Perfect ground for debate.
Will 'Image be user definable? Like Python's __str__? Very good
for obfuscation, then. Will the encoding be part of the definition,
so that I can use it in our existing trace logs?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?)
2014-11-15 19:58 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Georg Bauhaus
@ 2014-11-18 0:39 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-18 8:20 ` 'Image Björn Lundin
2014-11-19 13:46 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Brian Drummond
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2014-11-18 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message
news:m48b93$ke0$1@dont-email.me...
> On 15.11.14 18:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
...
> Will 'Image be user definable?
No, not in the Corrigendum (at least). We spent some time looking at ideas
for that, but nothing practical has appeared. (We would want any
user-definable 'Image to work like streams, so that there would be automatic
composition for composite types.)
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image
2014-11-18 0:39 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-11-18 8:20 ` Björn Lundin
2014-11-18 22:29 ` 'Image Randy Brukardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Björn Lundin @ 2014-11-18 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 2014-11-18 01:39, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message
> news:m48b93$ke0$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 15.11.14 18:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...
>> Will 'Image be user definable?
>
> No, not in the Corrigendum (at least).
Is it conceptually the same as T'Image(varible) where T is a scalar type
? That is, it will not apply to records ?
--
Björn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image
2014-11-18 8:20 ` 'Image Björn Lundin
@ 2014-11-18 22:29 ` Randy Brukardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2014-11-18 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]
"Björn Lundin" <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m4evds$bru$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2014-11-18 01:39, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:m48b93$ke0$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 15.11.14 18:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> ...
>>> Will 'Image be user definable?
>>
>> No, not in the Corrigendum (at least).
>
> Is it conceptually the same as T'Image(varible) where T is a scalar type
> ? That is, it will not apply to records ?
Yes, exactly. Specifically:
For a prefix X that denotes an object of a scalar type[ (after any implicit
dereference)], the following attributes are defined:
X'Image X'Image denotes the result of calling function S'Image with Arg
being X, where S is the nominal subtype of X.
and similarly for Wide_Image and Wide_Wide_Image.
We've looked at ideas for allowing Image on record types, but it gets messy
in a hurry, especially if user-defined Image is involved. (User-defined
'Image only makes sense if there is some additional functionally associated
with that, as in the stream case; otherwise, just defining a normal function
is good enough [and fewer characters to write, too].)
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?)
2014-11-15 19:58 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Georg Bauhaus
2014-11-18 0:39 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-11-19 13:46 ` Brian Drummond
2014-11-19 14:21 ` 'Image G.B.
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Brian Drummond @ 2014-11-19 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:58:39 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 15.11.14 18:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Randy Brukardt:
>>
>>> Semi-related to this is that we approved Obj'Image as a
>>> language-defined attribute,
>> Did they drop leading space characters while they were at it? :-)
>
> Of course not, they know about the possibility of a '-', and how are you
> going to write orderly column layout if in Ada there is no space!
>
> Perfect ground for debate.
>
> Will 'Image be user definable? Like Python's __str__? Very good for
> obfuscation, then. Will the encoding be part of the definition,
> so that I can use it in our existing trace logs?
Something similar just came up in a VHDL context, where the question was
asked, is '&' overloadable for non-string-or-character types.
And it appears it is, so that you can simplify the creation of
complicated strings (and eliminate leading spaces if you wish) by a
package of functions overloading '&' to wrap 'Image for integer and
similar types.
The testcase (minimally translated) seems to work in Ada too (Gnat 4.9.1
at least), extension from single characters to 'image and strings should
be obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure foo is
function "&" (l: string; r: natural) return string is
begin
return l & character'VAL(r);
end "&";
a: constant string := "abcd";
b: constant string := "efgh";
begin
Ada.Text_IO.put_line( "concatenated string is " & a & -- Line 18
character'VAL(16#42#) & b &
" " & a & 16#42# & b );
end foo;
--------------------------------------------------------
-- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image
2014-11-19 13:46 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Brian Drummond
@ 2014-11-19 14:21 ` G.B.
2014-11-20 13:32 ` 'Image Brian Drummond
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: G.B. @ 2014-11-19 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 19.11.14 14:46, Brian Drummond wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> with Ada.Text_IO;
>
> procedure foo is
> function "&" (l: string; r: natural) return string is
> begin
> return l & character'VAL(r);
> end "&";
>
> a: constant string := "abcd";
> b: constant string := "efgh";
> begin
> Ada.Text_IO.put_line( "concatenated string is " & a & -- Line 18
> character'VAL(16#42#) & b &
> " " & a & 16#42# & b );
> end foo;
> --------------------------------------------------------
This is from GNAT's Spitbol support package:
function "&" (Num : Integer; Str : String) return String;
function "&" (Str : String; Num : Integer) return String;
function "&" (Num : Integer; Str : VString) return VString;
function "&" (Str : VString; Num : Integer) return VString;
-- In all these concatenation operations, the integer is converted to
-- its corresponding decimal string form, with no leading blank.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 'Image
2014-11-19 14:21 ` 'Image G.B.
@ 2014-11-20 13:32 ` Brian Drummond
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Brian Drummond @ 2014-11-20 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:21:19 +0100, G.B. wrote:
> On 19.11.14 14:46, Brian Drummond wrote:
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> with Ada.Text_IO;
>>
>> procedure foo is
>> function "&" (l: string; r: natural) return string is begin
>> return l & character'VAL(r);
>> end "&";
...
> This is from GNAT's Spitbol support package:
>
> function "&" (Num : Integer; Str : String) return String;
> function "&" (Str : String; Num : Integer) return String;
> function "&" (Num : Integer; Str : VString) return VString;
> function "&" (Str : VString; Num : Integer) return VString;
> -- In all these concatenation operations, the integer is converted
> to -- its corresponding decimal string form, with no leading blank.
heh, thanks!
- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-20 13:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1992-04-09 20:53 'IMAGE Mark A Biggar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-11-10 9:30 What exactly is the licensing situation with Gnat? Hubert
2014-11-10 11:09 ` What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Hubert
2014-11-10 11:19 ` Markus Schöpflin
2014-11-10 15:45 ` David Botton
2014-11-11 0:09 ` Hubert
2014-11-11 13:37 ` john
2014-11-11 22:52 ` Hubert
2014-11-11 23:10 ` David Botton
2014-11-11 23:25 ` Alan Jump
2014-11-12 0:50 ` David Botton
2014-11-12 1:15 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 1:24 ` David Botton
2014-11-12 8:12 ` Simon Wright
2014-11-12 8:35 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 9:25 ` Mark Carroll
2014-11-12 9:37 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 10:31 ` jm.tarrasa
2014-11-12 10:44 ` Hubert
2014-11-12 22:53 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-12 23:21 ` David Botton
2014-11-14 4:51 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-15 17:32 ` Florian Weimer
2014-11-15 19:58 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Georg Bauhaus
2014-11-18 0:39 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-11-18 8:20 ` 'Image Björn Lundin
2014-11-18 22:29 ` 'Image Randy Brukardt
2014-11-19 13:46 ` 'Image (was: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?) Brian Drummond
2014-11-19 14:21 ` 'Image G.B.
2014-11-20 13:32 ` 'Image Brian Drummond
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox