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-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:54:13 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
	<872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
	<9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
	<4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="rPrXmWlYhTpgX479xW/wZA";
	logging-data="3882"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NrQ7oUQ/XazUXutIjzL5H"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:suPPhWG3ANzx6jrgV00IwxjJrIQ=
	sha1:s60Iwj4WHRDNmVMr5ay7GcQYGuw=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19421
Date: 2011-05-24T21:54:13+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>> Opposing a get-that-duct-tape-solution-out–the-door style for
>> standardization, I'd imagine starting from questions like the
>> following and then weigh POSIX sockets as the possible answer:
> Why not, POSIX would be OK, indeed, as it provides the same. But there
> should be good reason to introduce POSIX here. This would be OK if
> there  was support for POSIX in the Ada standard, and this is actually
> not.

Wrong. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Platform/POSIX says:

"POSIX.5 is an IEEE (IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996) and ISO (ISO/IEC
14519:2001) standard defining an Ada interface to the POSIX system
calls."

Florist is a Free Software implementation of POSIX.5.  The only nit you
might pick is that POSIX.5 is not included by reference in the Ada
Reference Manual.  Personally I don't really care.  If I need to and if
my target system is POSIX compliant (which it always is in practice), I
can write a standard Ada program using the standard sockets interface
which is part of the standard POSIX.5.

Oh, and I think I did mention GNAT.Sockets.  So what are people
complaining about, again?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.