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-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:11:47 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
 <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick>
In-Reply-To: <op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4ddc3b33$0$6542$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2011 01:11:47 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9ff7778f.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=F^diYEofa4c]l@YUW5NBkn4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkh?n0>]NnbYbPCY\c7>ejVhC[DnC`;PS\bYHEinOM]<cb
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20402
Date: 2011-05-25T01:11:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5/24/11 9:38 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

>> I doubt that the best answer to these questions can
>> be summed up by saying, "Mirror Posix sockets!".
> Why ?

Because design of networked applications in general,
following a language standard, cannot be addressed
by the QoI of some Unix library only.
In particular when this is about language standardization.

Millions of programs run fairly well and call C library functions.
That's not a compelling reason to add more from the C library
to the Ada standard, is it?

Threads, POSIX style threads, are ubiquitous as well.
Should they get an Annex, too?