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,c6e016ae58737f34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: win32ada design question/problem
Date: 1998/11/19
Message-ID: <7324a6$4fs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 413623254
References: <731rn7$kj5@lotho.delphi.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x10.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 19 21:58:41 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1998-11-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <731rn7$kj5@lotho.delphi.com>,
  tmoran@bix.com wrote:
> >- Try interfacing fcntl, setsockopt or some other weird functions using
> >access types: these somtimes return, or take as a parameter, a pointer
> >that points to a type that changes depending on the function you want to
> >perform, which is determined by the value of another parameter. You can
> >certainly do this with overloading, but I am not sure this buys much in
> >a thin binding.
>   This certainly happens, but relatively rarely.  I take it as yet
> another argument against too-thin bindings.

But there *has* to be a binding at this level somewhere! It might not be
directly called by most users, but it still has to be there.

--
T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own