From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
Subject: Re: GNAT and Florist
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:25:02 +0200
Date: 2004-08-11T22:25:16+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87brhhs9r5.fsf@insalien.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m3y8klhcxl.fsf@0x5358ef1b.boanxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk
I would like to add that Florist sockets are not exactly standard (as
in POSIX) because that part of POSIX never got approved formally. The
README file in Florist says:
> Beware of the packages POSIX_Sockets, POSIX_Sockets.Internet,
> POSIX_Sockets.Local, POSIX_Sockets.ISO, POSIX_XTI,
> POSIX_XTI.Internet, POSIX_XTI.ISO, POSIX_XTI.MOSI,
> POSIX_Event_Management. These are parts of a POSIX.5c prototype
> effort that stalled during the ballot/revision process. We have
> since made some improvements, notably in the socket interfaces, but
> this is far from a finished work. These package interfaces SHOULD
> NOT BE ASSUMED TO CONFORM to the approved POSIX.5c standard, nor are
> they fully implemented.
That being said, I see no reason why the "proposed" sockets API in
Florist should not work.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-11 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-10 7:09 GNAT and Florist fabio de francesco
2004-08-10 19:24 ` Mark Lorenzen
2004-08-11 11:56 ` fabio de francesco
2004-08-11 16:11 ` Mark Lorenzen
2004-08-11 20:25 ` Ludovic Brenta [this message]
2004-08-11 9:02 ` Pascal Obry
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox