Re: win32ada design question/problem

[Marin David Condic <diespammer@flinet.com>]

Tom Moran wrote:

> >But there *has* to be a binding at this level somewhere! It might not be
> >directly called by most users, but it still has to be there.
> Clearly.  But also clearly such 'dirty work' should be encapsulated
> inside a pretty, understandable, robust, etc box.

I'd agree - to a point. It would be nice to have a very-thick sort of binding
to the Win32api, such as CLAW, which is a shot at creating its own windows
interface paradigm. (From my casual inspection, it is a much better job than
the organically-grown Win32api!) However, if you get serious about any sort
of Win32api programming, you are going to occasionally need to go past any
thick binding right to the original source. (A little analogous to dipping
into assembler.) Here' I'd like to have a slightly meatier interface than the
Win32Ada interface which simply organized the types and parameters the way an
Ada programmer would expect to see them, then having the binding translate to
the low level Win32Ada code. Maybe we call it Win32Ada++?)

MDC

--
Marin David Condic
===========================================================
    "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big
    enough to take it all away."

        --  Barry Goldwater
===========================================================