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: 2003-06-21 06:03:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding Date: 21 Jun 2003 08:03:25 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <3EF2F6B8.3030706@noplace.com> <3EF44B79.2000407@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1056200505 25554 192.135.80.34 (21 Jun 2003 13:01:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39528 Date: 2003-06-21T08:03:25-05:00 List-Id: In article , Ludovic Brenta writes: > Marin David Condic writes: > >> Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> > On the contrary, as I said, POSIX _is_ an abstract interface, and >> > implementations have some freedom in how they implement it. >> > >> It is an "abstract interface" for a UNIX-like implementation. There >> are OS's besides UNIX and possibly in the next ten years or so that >> an Ada standard would have to live, there may be a bunch more >> non-UNIX operating systems out there. I have no objection to POSIX >> or UNIX - just suggesting that an Ada standard would do well to not >> dictate either POSIX or UNIX as the only possible answer. > > Maybe you have a point here ("all problems can be solved with an > additional level of indirection", I think was the quote). It probably > depends on how difficult it would be to implement POSIX.5 sockets on > non-POSIX platforms. It is not just a matter of "how difficult" but rather "how illogical". VMS direct IP access uses the QIO system service which returns status on every call and after every IO completion. Layering a C-language socket structure on top of that introduces the awful "errno" business. Now should an IP package for Ada go through that C-language layer and try to undo the "errno" business, or should it call the QIO system service directly and never get tied up in "errno" at all ? > Furthermore, I would think that anyone designing > a new OS in the next ten years would want to make it POSIX-compliant, > because it would be too difficult to try an impose an alternative API. > In fact, you've probably noticed that even the MVS and z/OS mainframe > operating systems became POSIX-compliant for just that reason. When VMS added Posix-compliant calls it was to allow C programmers to use it in a fashion to which they were accustomed. They did _not_ force all programmers to use those C conventions. Is the MVS situation somehow more restrictive ?