From: patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org
Subject: Re: Please evaluate tiny binding that does not use Interfaces.C
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2017-08-18T08:41:06-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <777d39c5-b4a8-49e6-8eaa-179dbcc5f2ed@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a55ef6e8-1565-4a43-b2f9-41792d15d199@googlegroups.com>
Sorry for answering my own post. I just wanted to add that in the above example WINDOW is a pointer to a null record but it is not really a null pointer. I would not be able to pass other pointer types to functions expecting WINDOW so is it not type safe in fact?
Why create records to match C structs, a pointer declared of that type can only be used to pass addresses of that struct's type and accomplishes the same thing with far less clutter no?
Have we all been giving -fdump-ada-spec a free pass without evaluating it's logic or am I the one being illogical ?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-18 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-18 2:23 Please evaluate tiny binding that does not use Interfaces.C patrick
2017-08-18 5:18 ` Per Sandberg
2017-08-18 13:05 ` patrick
2017-08-18 15:41 ` patrick [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox