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: 103376,1563af5c167aacf2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 13:04:30 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pd9eb2e6e.dip.t-dialin.NET!not-for-mail
From: Immanuel Scholz <news@kutzsche.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: thick? thin? binding
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:50:12 +0200
Message-ID: <aeqn6l$9f20t$1@ID-100557.news.dfncis.de>
References: <aeqjst$96ip3$1@ID-100557.news.dfncis.de>
 <ulm9bul0l.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9eb2e6e.dip.t-dialin.net (217.235.46.110)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024516117 9930781 217.235.46.110 (16 [100557])
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26432
Date: 2002-06-19T21:50:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake wrote:

> A "Thick binding" to Win32 would use either Ada access types or just
> "in out" parameters, instead of System.Address. It would also use Ada
> String instead of null-terminated strings. Typically, this requires
> intermediate code to convert between the too. The amount of this
> intermediate code determines the "thickness" of the binding.

So the MFC is a thick binding from Win32-C-API to C++ ?  :-)
(Err, in some places this binding is really thin).


This also means thick binding is better but slower.

Immanuel Scholz