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: <34F1C9CD.5D5DCD3C@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 327914672 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34EEFF9C.1D01FA5D@stellar1.com> <1998Feb21.194544.1@eisner> <34ef8225.83906260@enews.newsguy.com> <34F007C5.7D9F2D7@cl.cam.ac.uk> <34F16525.17E166AA@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: > I wonder, have you actually studied the Ada standard in coming to your > conclusions about convenience? You mean POSIX.5? Not yet. I have ordered a copy from IEEE and I am eagerly waiting to see this standard and to find out whether it is as good as my beloved POSIX.1 for C. But I will consider your advice seriously to get more comfortable with interface pragmas and use libc directly for the time being. I just thought using POSIX.5 would be a cleaner "native Ada programming" style then the C/Ada mixture that I will get by using interface pragmas. That's the reason for my style/convenience concerns. Is there anything wrong with POSIX.5 compared with POSIX.1 in your opinion (except the lack of an implementation)? Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: