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: 103376,2d2df3e9ad18fa63
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-29 13:58:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!cox.net!p01!lakeread05.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Emery <demery@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding
References: <m38yrxd9pf.fsf@niflheim.malonet> <87znkbqmby.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <m3d6h7ys2r.fsf@niflheim.malonet> <87znk0hqcu.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87znk0hqcu.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <9qILa.27717$ZE.3736@lakeread05>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:58:45 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.98.177.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: lakeread05 1056920325 68.98.177.213 (Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:58:45 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:58:45 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39905
Date: 2003-06-29T16:58:45-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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