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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d2df3e9ad18fa63 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-20 12:24:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EF35BDE.7000800@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding References: <3EF338C5.2010005@cogeco.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:09:18 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1056136160 198.96.223.163 (Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:09:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:09:20 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39502 Date: 2003-06-20T15:09:18-04:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote: >>But there _are_ problems WRT Ada. The first that comes to mind is >>the whole error handling approach. POSIX likes the idea of an errno >>value with errno codes. The Ada approach often uses exceptions, and > > I have the paper version of IEEE 1003.5-1992 which specifically has a > discussion of why that Ada binding to POSIX uses exception handling > instead of errno. ISO/IEC 14519 appears to be a successor, covering more > ground (eg sockets). The Ada binding is thick in the sense of using > exceptions, strong typing, generics, tasking, etc, but it's still pretty > "close to the hardware". It also was designed pre-Ada95. In designing > CLAW, we studied the 1003.5-1992 book, but in many cases went for a higher > abstraction level. For instance, claw sockets need merely Open, Write, > Close (Close is optional, actually, thanks to Finalization) with lots of > stuff, like the multiple states a socket can be in, happening "under the > hood". There are projects that need the detailed level of control, and > there are projects that will be implemented faster with the simplified > interface. I don't think a one-size-fits-all standard socket binding > would be adequate. The point of a standardized package is not necessarily to have "one-size-fits-all", though that might be one goal, if it were possible. Ada.Text_IO is certainly not "one-size-fits-all" for text I/O, but yet, it works sufficiently well for a large majority of the cases required for applications. I think many people would be happy to achieve something similar for network programming. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg