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: 103376,8893269a4640c798 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-26 13:18:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed.cgocable.net!read1.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F17DF3C.4080204@noplace.com> <3F196773.2060809@noplace.com> <3F19F86C.9050808@attbi.com> <3F1A772F.9060708@noplace.com> <3F1AD6FB.8080806@attbi.com> <3F1BD666.6040506@noplace.com> <3F1C4DA6.3070405@attbi.com> <3F1D29E8.60107@noplace.com> <3F1D2FDC.1070402@noplace.com> Subject: Re: terminate applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:18:37 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1059251049 24.150.168.167 (Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:24:09 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:24:09 EDT Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40850 Date: 2003-07-26T16:18:37-04:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:etldVqgp8sE1@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > > "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:$TwrUBtoh25l@eisner.encompasserve.org... > >> In article <3F227982.30204@noplace.com>, Marin David Condic writes: > >> > O.K., but what is wrong with saying that most operating systems provide > >> > some means of immediate process termination in the form of a system call > >> > and that Ada ought to have a portable and common binding to that (and > >> > other) OS procedures? > >> > >> What is wrong is that not all operating systems define those facilities > >> in the same way. Ada programmers moving such code from one platform to > >> another should be forced to read the definition for the particular OS > >> to see if it still matches the expectations of their program. > >> > >> VMS has about three such calls, with varying effects. Which one should > >> an Ada compiler invoke ? > > > > That is an interesting point. I don't know VMS, but I would expect > > that the one that MDC is looking for can be chosen from that set. > > > > How do these 3 vary? Surely, one of these must be inline with what > > other O/S's provide. > > Are you claiming that all operating systems other than VMS are uniform > in what they provide ? I made no claim. I asked a question. > > The other API entries (if useful), can be provided > > by a Halt.Aux package or some other extension perhaps. > > Presuming the VMS choices cover the universe of possibilities (doubtful), > what basis is there to think there is a uniform view of what is "the other" > method. How many ways would you expect there to be in this "universe of program terminations"? You seem to be implying that this could be huge (and thus a problem). I doubt that even more than your doubt, so there ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg