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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d608a55f7b2e640
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Call for ACE participation
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <1996Oct16.112853.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189873331
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <1996Oct8.194417.16693@ocsystems.com> <1996Oct15.161554.1@eisner>
 <dewar.845433836@merv>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 845479737/8574
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.845433836@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Larry said
> 
> "Is this Working Group likely to have anything better to choose from,
> or are we condemned to live with bindings which do not offer the full
> power of Ada for a long time?"
> 
> Thick bindings have to be built on top of thin bindings in any case.
> For many purposes thin bindings are far preferable to thick bindings.

Yes, I certainly want thin bindings in many cases, but I would think of
a binding which mirrored OS calls but described them with different
derived numeric types for "window number" and "command number" as
still being "thin".  I have to do as much work to use it, but more
of my mistakes will be automatically detected.

> Ultimately we perhaps need both, but reliastically, we will have only
> thin bindings for many applications.

I already understand the idea that such things take work,
but I did not know if there was some reason other than the
effort required.  Clearly provision of something better
than today's bindings will not prevent someone with using
today's.

Larry Kilgallen