Re: About to give up...

[i96danma@my-dejanews.com]

In article <6qcblu$f60$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <6qbt86$dh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   i96danma@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I will typically write my own binding for OS routines which returns an object
> of the type I want to deal with. Bindings aren't that tough to write. Just 2
> lines of code (not counting any special types you declare for them). Then
> I'll write a "thick" binding which provides an Ada-like interface to the OS
> routine, and doesn't burden the caller with those useless input and return
> values.

I've been thinking about that, but it's just such a enormous task, in small
prog without any functionality there are loads of calls just to get things
going. I want to learn _using_ the binding, not _writing_ one (although one
day I just might do that :).

> Often times in dealing with OS routines written for users of type-unsafe
> languages you will have to make use of Unchecked_Conversions. That's ok. Just
> be careful.

But, then there's no point of having strong typing at all, when half of my
time is spent getting around the typing, a new Unchecked_Allocation for every
unique combination. Phew!

> As for the useless values, just put them into "Trash" variables. No big deal.

True but tedious...

/Dan

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum