Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding

[David Emery <demery@cox.net>]

Florian Weimer wrote:
...
> POSIX is portable, but POSIX applications aren't necessarily so.  At
> least the C version of the standard leaves so many loopholes that you
> really can't write portable applications on the whiteboard.  

Despite the lack of rigor in both the C language standard and the
C POSIX binding, many useful programs have been made and ported using
the C API/binding.

For the Ada binding, we tried to plug as many holes as we could, but
without changing the underlying semantics.  In other words, we could
be 'no better' than what the standard required. (In a very few cases,
we did tighten up the semantics, with the understanding that this would
be a potential implementation burden.)

I haven't
> checked if the Ada version is better in this regard, but FLORIST
> doesn't try to hide any discrepancy in the underlying C
> implementation, so it doesn't matter that much for us GNAT users.

To the best of my knowledge, FLORST is not a conforming 1003.5
implementation.

			dave