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,de7c66b71e353e40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Valued procedures Date: 1999/01/21 Message-ID: <787gb8$kp2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 435244897 References: <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.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 Jan 21 15:16:03 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dmitry6243@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Further, I believe it should be possible to ignore the result of a procedure. > (Using Ada bindings would be much less painful and produce clearer code if you > were not forced to declare tonns of dummy variables just to ignore various > unused results.) So that either The Ada way to handle this is to overload the procedure with a version that does not return those results, and in its body call the first (full) routine. This does add an extra layer to your bindings, but bindings to another language are almost *always* awkward to use in Ada without adding another layer. That's what's meant by "thick" bindings. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own