Re: Directory listings and path names

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

Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

I can see value in trying to create the most flexible interface possible but
I think you'd have to admit that there are some features of OS #1 that are
just simply not going to exist or even make sense under OS #2. In some of
those cases, you might be able to get clever and find a way to keep those
features from compiling under OS #2, but I could still see it as being
particularly attractive to say "Here's a set of features that make sense for
(almost) any operating system under package name X and here are features
that only make sense or are supported by OS #1 under package name X.OS_1,
etc..." That way, you can develop code that is OS independent if you like
*or* take advantage of peculiarities of a particular OS through an interface
you feel comfortable will be there for (almost) any Ada implementation that
targets that particular system.

Clearly, whatever can be made OS independent, ought to be. But there are
reasons why, sometimes, Windows is better for something than Unix or has
features that won't exist in any form under Unix, etc.

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/


"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message
news:a2mf2e$h1q$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net...
>
> Not necessarily. Have a look at package OS_Services from Adalog's
component page (http://www.adalog.fr/compo2.htm) for a system that
> allows a lot of flexibility. It achieves the following goal:
> - if functionnality XYZ is provided, it works independently of the OS
> - if functionnality XYZ is *not* provided (and you need it), it doesn't
compile.
>
> In short, a program will work on any platform that supports the
functionnalities needed by the program.