Re: win32ada design question/problem

[Roga Danar <smithm_nospam@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>]

I agree completely.  The bindings I use are done in this way.

Mats Weber wrote:

> Tom Moran wrote:
>
> > Win32Ada is just a thin binding to that, and Windows (based on C) uses
> > the equivalent of Unchecked_Access all over.  You either swallow hard
> > and do C-ish code with Ada syntax, or you hide it in a thicker
> > binding.
>
> I disagree. Windows was written in C, as was UNIX, and the same problems
> would appear in a UNIX binding if it were done the same way (using fancy
> access types).
>
> I think the problem with this binding is the inappropriate use of
> general access types, because:
>
> - they encourage using global declarations for the parameters (and this
> is actually happening: see the examples), when using 'Unchecked_Access
> would be far better.
>
> - they don't document what is actually being done, e.g. to pass a
> string, you must pass an '(Unchecked_)Access to its first character,
> which is definitely not the Ada way of doing things and could even be a
> problem with an aggressive optimizer.
>
> I think a binding done with System.Address for pointers and strings, and
> Interfaces.C.Int for integers, would be far better. It's the way thin
> bindings were done in Ada 83 and it's a method that has always worked
> fine and does not have the general access type approach's problems.

--