Re: Nontrivial examples of C interface with Ada

[tmoran@bix.com]

>Somehow, the concept of "binding" to me seems like it ought to be a
>one-for-one kind of "parallel" thing. If it starts abstracting from
>there, maybe it should have a different name.
  From the Posix Binding (IEEE Std 1003.5-1992)
B.1.4 Level of Binding
  There was a choice between a "direct" or an "abstract" binding of the
POSIX functions into Ada.  A direct binding is one where the base
POSIX.1(2) operations are mapped as closely as possible into Ada.  An
abstract binding groups the POSIX functionalities into abstract data
types, operations on those types, and packages of logically related
operations.
  The abstract binding has been chosen.

Clearly it's a matter of taste and judgement just where you stop calling
it a "binding" and give it a new name.  When we started work on Claw,
the intended user was an Ada programmer who wanted to write Ada programs
that ran on, and had the look and feel of, Windows programs.  Such a
person would probably be looking for a "Windows binding", and Claw
would fit his needs.  If instead you are a Windows programmer who
is coding in Ada, then a "thin binding" is probably just the ticket.
Perhaps, by analogy with hardware, Claw should be called a "Windows
driver", but I think that would confuse more than it clarifies.
"Binding" describes the function of Claw, even if it doesn't describe
its surface look, so I'm inclined to stay with "binding".