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,d1533431e7e9d2eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin D. Condic" Subject: Re: Nontrivial examples of C interface with Ada Date: 2000/05/28 Message-ID: <39315E0E.FDBE2F23@quadruscorp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 628269563 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3930178D.93CA1EDB@quadruscorp.com> Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Sender: "Marin D. Condic" (Unverified) X-Server-Date: 28 May 2000 15:01:08 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-28T15:01:08+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@bix.com wrote: > Take a look at www.adapower.com in the list under "Win32 bindings". > Clearly several of those are what you would call subsystems, not bindings. > I suggest we adopt the idea of R-values of insulation thickness. Then an > R-1 binding is Ada syntax, acceptable to an Ada compiler, but C in spirit, > ie, pass pointers, return flags, etc. I'd say an R-4 binding has > exceptions and types, but still a 1-1 map between C functions and Ada > procedures. I'd call CLAW an R-15, say, because it does indeed insulate > you from many of the characteristics of the C API, but still follows the > general outline. In particular, your program built with CLAW will have > the "look and feel" of a Windows program to its users. A platform > independent "subsystem", eg GtkAda or Tcl/Tk, would be labeled R-50 - you > have an internal environment that is almost totally independent of the > external environment. O.K. I think we agree on concept at least. Something that maps one-for-one is a different animal than something which has a high level of insulation and portability. There are two questions: When does it stop being a difference in degree and start being a difference in kind? What name do you want to call it when it starts being a difference in kind? (is a relational database just a "binding" to the OS file system only with a higher level of insulation?) Somehow, the concept of "binding" to me seems like it ought to be a one-for-one kind of "parallel" thing. If it starts abstracting from there, maybe it should have a different name. Where did I leave my thesaurus? :-) -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================