From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
Subject: Re: Compiler error: 'Expect procedure name in procedure call'
Date: 6 Nov 2002 07:06:12 -0800
Date: 2002-11-06T15:06:12+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4519e058.0211060706.2f4a9f1c@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3DC82F56.A723BACA@mmm.com
cjsonnack@mmm.com (Programmer Dude) wrote in message news:<3DC82F56.A723BACA@mmm.com>...
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> > You are actually calling C functions. It is still a bad idea to
> > ignore a return value. The return value is your only indication of an
> > error from a C function. Ignoring errors is a BAD idea.
>
> But what about C functions in the str* family? They often just return
> their first argument (that is, not an error code).
You're right. C functions have all sorts of different bizzare ways of
returning results and statuses. That's why I generally advocate
isolating interfacing C pragmas in package bodies, with the specs
exporting a cleaned-up Ada interface (removing useless parameters and
returns, raising exceptions for errors, converting ugly C types to
nice clean Ada types, etc.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-06 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-04 15:05 Compiler error: 'Expect procedure name in procedure call' Jon
2002-11-04 15:35 ` Stephen Leake
2002-11-04 19:57 ` Jon
2002-11-04 20:35 ` Björn Lundin
2002-11-04 20:53 ` Björn Lundin
2002-11-04 20:48 ` Jim Rogers
2002-11-04 21:08 ` Stephen Leake
2002-11-05 22:15 ` Frank J. Lhota
2002-11-05 20:51 ` Programmer Dude
2002-11-06 15:06 ` Ted Dennison [this message]
2002-11-04 21:40 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2002-11-05 9:29 ` Jon
2002-11-05 9:55 ` Dale Stanbrough
2002-11-06 23:29 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-11-05 14:22 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox