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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-02 01:33:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!freenix!proxad.net!news.teledanmark.no!news.equant.no!uninett.no!dax.net!juliett.dax.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X (Ada.Sockets) References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com> <3ED4A94C.2020501@noplace.com> <3ed4c9a2@news.wineasy.se> <3ED4EB4E.6050108@cogeco.ca> From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Message-ID: <7vllwk6frm.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:32:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.216.12.150 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tele2.no X-Trace: juliett.dax.net 1054542765 193.216.12.150 (Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:32:45 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:32:45 MET DST Organization: Tele2 Norway AS Public Access Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38315 Date: 2003-06-02T08:32:45+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff writes: > "chris.danx" writes: > > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > > > > Standard, as in required of all compilers ? > > > That would be totally bogus in some embedded environments. > > > > Can't you say "the provision of sockets is compulsory, except for > > environments where such provision makes no sense"? i.e. it's not > > optional for compilers on networked systems, but not mandatory on > > embedded targets? > > It seems better to say "here's the standard way to do it, but it's > optional". That's what the SN Annexes are for. Then implementers > can choose whether to implement it based on the needs of their > customers. After all, the purpose of standards is to encourage > uniformity -- not to encourage implementers to provide functionality > to their customers (the market is supposed to do the latter). > Sounds logical, but look what's happened to garbage collection. No one implements it, ergo the user cannot count on it even though it's in the standard. -- Ole-Hj. Kristensen ****************************************************************************** * You cannot consistently believe this sentence. ******************************************************************************