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: 103376,3cfb384718eb4f7a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dale Stanbrough Subject: Re: question re Ada equivalent of C function Date: 1998/02/24 Message-ID: <6cubjv$1ut$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 328142636 Distribution: world Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <34EEFF9C.1D01FA5D@stellar1.com> <34F1C9CD.5D5DCD3C@cl.cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-XXMessage-ID: Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: "I would have thought it was clearly the case that it is more convenient to use pragma Import than a thickish binding. An aggressively thin binding might be more convenient (basically it would save you the trouble of writing the pragma Imports), but that is not what the standard provides." I would agree that thin bindings are useful, especially as the common C type map to common Ada types (or at least to those in interfaces.c). I have found that providing a slightly thicker layer to accomodate Ada's strings to be useful. The use of callback data in Motif/TCL/Tk is also an area where something better than "wafer thin" is also called for. It's much easier to provide bindings and say (to students for example) "just read the man page", than to have to create your own documentation. Being _able_ to say "just read the man page" also helps with Ada's acceptance. Dale