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,c6e016ae58737f34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Roga Danar <smithm_nospam@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>
Subject: Re: win32ada design question/problem
Date: 1998/11/27
Message-ID: <365F0CC4.36199B9D@XXX_nospam_stelnj.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 416286437
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <364C5EDE.4F402D13@elca-matrix.ch>
 <364c90eb.10939677@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <36501A46.82C348D3@elca-matrix.ch>
To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.exit109.com 912195063 27275 208.225.73.22 (27 Nov 1998 19:31:03
 GMT)
Organization: AlphaSoft, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: job_nospam@XXXalphasoft-inc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 1998 19:31:03 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-27T19:31:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.

--