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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92640d662fc31a03 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-10 05:40:14 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!titan03.ksc.nasa.gov!niven.ksc.nasa.gov!usenet From: "Samuel T. Harris" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: howto make system calls (newbie question) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 07:34:54 -0500 Organization: Raytheon Aerospace Engineering Services Message-ID: <3AFA8AEE.9C60F9AC@gsde.hou.us.ray.com> References: Reply-To: samuel_t_harris@raytheon.com NNTP-Posting-Host: sstf-fw.jsc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.2 IP19) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7456 Date: 2001-05-10T07:34:54-05:00 List-Id: "Beard, Frank" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Samuel T. Harris [mailto:u61783@gsde.hou.us.ray.com] > > > Of course, there are other "standards" which are not part > > of the Ada standard. For instance, the POSIX Ada binding > > has been invaluable to me in writing portable code which > > requires facilities from the operating system. > > Most of the ones I would like included are found in the > POSIX Ada binding (file/record locking on files, move/rename > files, directory lists, environment variable handling, > process IDs, thread IDs). I would also like file access > control. > > > Since this is standardized by IEEE, I feel any particular > > need to include it as an Ada LRM annex. > > I think you are saying you "don't" feel any particular Yes. I corrected myself elsewhere. > need to include it as an Ada LRM annex. If that is what > you are saying, then I disagree. Even though I'm using > the POSIX binding, it is still too C-ish. And when I ported > our application to MS Windows, I had to write my own > POSIX Ada binding for the API's that I needed (this was > before Pascal Obry's binding came out). I took the POSIX > Ada binding spec and wrote my own bodies for the ones I > needed, and nulled the rest. If that functionality, > or any functionality, is part of the standard, there is > no need to go out and find bindings, or write your own. > It would already be available, assuming it was supported. > > I don't know what the legalities are, but why not take the > POSIX standard, use it as a model/guideline, and create a > more "pure" Ada annex out of it. There's the rub. A annex is optional. It will be provided by a majority of vendors if there is enough customer demand. This same demand can also cause vendors to support the POSIX binding in its present form I don't see where having an Annex serves any purpose in this regard. Since POSIX is already a managed standard, I don't see how "duplicating" it as an Ada standard servers any purpose in this regard. About the only thing I can think of is the validation of compliance the POSIX standard could be enforced as part of compiler certification. That would be good. I suppose this work could be addressed by some appropriate Ada Working Group. As to the legalities, IEEE makes money when folks buy their published standards. They may have a problem with incorporating their POSIX Ada binding into a ISO standard which is freely available. -- Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services "If you can make it, We can fake it!"