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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3689d3c938c589e5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-23 07:51:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Directory listings and path names Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:32:22 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1011796344 19185 136.170.200.133 (23 Jan 2002 14:32:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Jan 2002 14:32:24 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19238 Date: 2002-01-23T14:32:24+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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.