Re: RE: rename missing in Text_IO

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <9d6ahn$157$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>Every time I have to dip into the Win32ada interfaces to get at Windoze, I
>wish I had an ever-so-slightly thicker binding that simply had its own
>parameter passing and data typing and all that so I don't have to deal with
>all the long chains of types & subtypes and ridiculous parameters that the C

I just flat out don't do it. The only thing (IMHO) the Win32Ada bindings (or any
other "thin bindings") are good for is a reference to the correct type sizes and
calling convention for a pragma Interface, which I will hide down in the body of
my own package. Even there, you're often better going to the C API's docs, as
they give much more detail about how an object is used and what is expected of
it. If you try to use the C types and error return values that a thin binding
provides you directly, they often end up spreading themselves (and the C style
their use requires) throughout your code like a cancer.

I'd like to take this opportunity to volunteer my services as a Win32 "thick
binding coordinator", since I can't seem to con anyone else into taking the job.
:-)  Anyone who has developed their own thick Win32 binding for some particular
Win32 facility, and has the legal right to allow their redistribution under the
GMGPL, feel free to email what you have to me. As mentioned before, I already
have bindings developed for WinNT/2K "services", process creation/control,
registry operations, and I am working on NT/2K's registry based "performance
data". They are currently only available under the GPL as part of the SETI@Home
Service (see the link on my website), but that will change soon.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com