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: 103376,5e2029689121453e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ron@cs.tamu.edu (Ron J Theriault)
Subject: Re: binding thickness indicator, was Re: GNAT, OS/2, Libraries
Date: 1996/04/19
Message-ID: <4l88ik$ed2@news.tamu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 148393078
sender: ron@slx0 (Ron J Theriault)
references: <4kjaib$bhc@news2.delphi.com>
organization: Texas A&M Computer Science Department, College Station, TX
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4kjaib$bhc@news2.delphi.com>, tmoran@bix.com writes:
|> I propose we use something analogous to house insulation 'R-values'
|> for indicating the thickness of a binding.  R1 would be the thinnest
|> possible, a la single pane window glass, like Tore's example of
|> interfacing to a C routine.  R50 would indicate such thickness and
|> insulation that, say, code using an R50 windowing GUI binding would be
|> portable across Mac, Windows, OS/2, and X-Windows.  R5 might be the
|> Ada flavor he mentions (type and range checked parameters, raise
|> exception instead of returning success/fail flag, etc) , but pretty
|> much still tied to the particular design, style, and widget offerings
|> of a particular system.  Clearly not an exact measurement, but
|> somewhat more specific than thick/thin.

You've been watching "This Old House" too long!  :-)

If a binding is portable across Macs, X-Windows, and others, just
what is it a binding to?  It would seem to be a binding
to a platform independent graphical toolkit of your invention.
-- 
Ron Theriault              |   
CS Department              |   In a democracy, you only have to fool
Texas A&M Univ.            |   most of the people, most of the time.
ron@cs.tamu.edu            |