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: 103376,44e43dc2ffe2ab01
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline)
Subject: Re: Perhaps there _is_ a conspiracy against Ada
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <33651adb.4341052@news.airmail.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237196771
References: <5jns4h$hv0@lotho.delphi.com>
Organization: INTERNET AMERICA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


tmoran@bix.com wrote:

>>And just how did you attach callback functions to GUI objects
>  You are quite right for the Macintosh where the (Meridian)
>compiler supplied a binding to the Mac OS that used their way
>of doing things.  But event driven under DOS did not need callbacks,
>because DOS didn't use callbacks.  It just had a looping task that
>called things (as well as separate tasks for some of the audio+video).
>

I was delivering for various workstation makes, using X/Motif.
I guess portability is no longer important since M$ has shown us the one true
way.

I wrote
>>2. I find it faster to add events to debugger breakpoints when I find a
>>testing error than to add a bunch of gratuitious print statements
>>that I will later have to remove.
>  No, the 'print something...' did not mean 'insert print statements'.
>The compiler's run-time-system automatically generated those messages
>for any unhandled exception.  

Not every erroneous Ada program crashes.  Sometimes they just don't behave as
you expect.

> And (unless you turned off checking) ...

I'm not the type to turn off checking while testing.