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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa1d6d9edff38204
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Ada '83 X widget bindings
Date: 1998/04/10
Message-ID: <1998Apr10.175420.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 342898502
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <6gignr$m4g@news.man.fs.lmco.com> <352e40d5.0@news1.ibm.net>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 892245265 24077 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <352e40d5.0@news1.ibm.net>, vonhend@ibm.net writes:
> The fact that Ada 83 doesn't support function pointers doesn't mean that you
> can't use conventional Xt and Motif bindings.  We use the Verdix-supplied bindings
> from the Free Software Foundation (originally developed by DEC) and they work just
> fine.  We do have to instantiate an unfortunate number of unchecked conversion 
> functions (something I personally don't like, as unchecked conversion defeats
> the purpose and value of strong type checking.)

Although theoretically strong type checking is important,
these bindings are for the purpose of accessing a whole
lot of code which does not use strong type checking, so
a little more around the edges isn't quite so bad.

Larry Kilgallen