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: 103376,3cfb384718eb4f7a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Markus Kuhn Subject: Re: Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT Date: 1998/02/23 Message-ID: <34F1683A.6149F19A@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 327804062 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34EEFF9C.1D01FA5D@stellar1.com> <1998Feb21.194544.1@eisner> <34ef8225.83906260@enews.newsguy.com> <34F007C5.7D9F2D7@cl.cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > But to decide that a particular binding is *the* solution seems strange > unless that binding has a reasonable currency as a standard in use. I was assuming that POSIX.5 is or will be the Ada equivalent of POSIX.1 for C. POSIX.1 for C is extremely widely implemented and highly helpful for portable programming on Unix. Any C programmer switching under Unix from C to Ada will expect to have the equivalent of POSIX.1 available under the new language, because under Unix you have to be able to deal with processes, signals, terminals and other functions that are beyond the Ada RM. Therefore, I considered an implementation of POSIX.5 to be urgently needed. What is wrong with that? Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: