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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b12bc9a1cc5c6c3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Spawning a subprocess and communicating with it.
Date: 1998/10/13
Message-ID: <EACHUS.98Oct13154917@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400724140
References: <F3740247C2BED111A0AE00805FEA9C92017FFD32@pwflml02.pwfl.com>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <F3740247C2BED111A0AE00805FEA9C92017FFD32@pwflml02.pwfl.com> "Condic, Marin D." <condicma@PWFL.COM> writes:

 > I would think that if Ada wanted to guarantee interoperability between Ada
 > implementations (and possibly other languages as well) the standard would
 > have to have become machine or OS specific. (Thou shalt use such-and-such OS
 > call in Unix to implement feature XYZ lest ye should fail to communicate
 > with thine neighbor. :-)

   The other alternative is to write the Distribution Annex to be very
useful in homogenous distributed systems without preventing
heterogenous distibution.  This is what we tried to do in Ada 95.
(Came pretty close, AI-208 discussed last week in Paris, deals with
this issue.  Paragraph E.2(13) is easy to understand in a homogenous
environment, but is clearly broken for heterogenous implementations.
"..the implementation shall chose the same representation fro the type
upon each elaboration of the type's declaration for different
partitions of the same program."  What does this mean for Integer if
two machines have different byte orderings?
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...