"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> a �crit dans le message news: > 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.
Agreed. And I hope my design allows this. Have a look at it, then I'll be pleased to respond to any "How do I..." you may have.

--
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr