Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada??

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

I think it would be an improvement for Ada if it had a mechanism for 
defining its own interrupts and/or attaching them to various system 
signals. (Something like an exception, but where the handler ends up 
being a task entry or protected type procedure call) The mechanisms 
currently in place are typically pretty good for bare-board programming 
& connecting to some hardware interrupt, but I'd like a mechanism for 
defining my own.

One use would be to isolate a hardware interrupt behind an abstraction 
so that it can be simulated off of the target machine. If a hardware 
interrupt were translated to some abstraction like an exception (call it 
a "signal"?) I could write a "signal handler" the way I write a hardware 
interrupt handler, but then be able to run it on a PC by writing some 
low-level simulation code that triggered the "signal" rather than having 
the hardware interrupt trigger it.

MDC

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> I don't know "file descriptor" as an Ada term, but presuming you mean
> activity on a file, I would use the VMS Lock Manager requesting an AST
> when there is activity (if I were creating an Ada implementation).

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has
      been found difficult; and left untried."

         --  G. K. Chesterton
======================================================================