Re: Directory listings and path names

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Not strictly true. Accessing a file system rather implies that there *is* a
file system and hence something vaguely resembling an OS that accesses it.
Tasking, OTOH, can exist on a bare-silicon platform with nothing more than
some sort of Ada RTK that supports the scheduling. (Unless we want to insist
that anything at least as sophisticated as an Ada RTK can be considered an
"Operating System".)

On yet another hand, I do agree that it would be a good idea for Ada to
provide a semi-standard interface to an OS file system. It would necessarily
be reduced to the least common denominator, but with child packages, it
would be possible to isolate interfaces for the most common OS's where there
may be non-portable features in question. Could this be part of the ARM? A
better place to start would be with an informal consensus & see if it might
eventually be something that could migrate to a more formal standard.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@bpr.best.vwh.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.40.0201182253560.954-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net...
>
> Says you! I could argue the same about tasking.
>
> IMO, it would be a good thing if there were some sort of standard
> directory package. I know, someone will argue that file systems are
> different. Oh yeah? So are the multitasking capabilities of various OSes.
>
> > I bet you can find a
> > couple of packages implementing such bindings freely available on the
> > Internet. If you are using GNAT, you already have it: GNAT.OS_Lib :-)
>
> True, but Ada should provide the support out of the box.
>
> This is one of the first things I need when I start with any programming
> language.
>
> -- Brian
>