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: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Valued procedures
Date: 1999/01/21
Message-ID: <787poa$toc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435272530
References: <786pfu$1vb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <787gb8$kp2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x14.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 21 17:56:33 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <787gb8$kp2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> 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.


Wrong on both counts. Thin bindings routinely provide a
procedure and function version for such interfaces.

Second, thick bindings are (hopefully!) about far more than
little trivial issues like this, they are about raising
the entire semantic level of the interface to a more
strongly typed, more abstract level. POSIX/Ada is a good
example of such a binding.

Incidentally allowing people to routinely ignore the
results of a call to a C function where the result is
the error code in Ada is truly horrible -- a systematic
way of importing into Ada one of the nastiest features of
C :-)

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