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,f6ee8ca03c176d76 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-28 13:24:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin D. Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: stupid question: how can I finish a program? Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:33:48 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <5ee5b646.0208241822.34540e8b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-180.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1030545241 16074 136.170.200.180 (28 Aug 2002 14:34:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Aug 2002 14:34:01 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28524 Date: 2002-08-28T14:34:01+00:00 List-Id: Oh, and how could it be defined in a portable way? C does it with a couple of standard functions. Ada can make standard subprograms too, so why not? Probably (since it is an OS dependent thing and might not have meaning outside the context of an OS) there should be some sort of standard package like "Ada.OS_Services" that contained proccedure(s) to connect to whatever the OS provides. (I hear something like this is in the works) There can't be *that* many different ways of killing the process that a reasonable compromise answer couldn't be found. What more would be needed than a "Kill_The_Process (Optional_Integer_Return_Code_For_Unix_Freaks) ;" call? Would it need to be dramatically different between Unix/Windows/Mac? Would anyone care if it couldn't be implemented easily on some obscure OS? Would the formal definition need to be any more complicated than: "Implementation Defined - but we suggest that you make it do what any sane person using the target OS would reasonably expect..."? It doesn't seem like Rocket Science to me - nor does it sound like a horendous burden on the compiler writers. The only real question could be "Is it reasonably useful to have such an operation?" and I think the answer is "Yes". MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling Digital. Our Vision is to be the biggest supplier worldwide of digital gateway technology. www.pacemicro.com "Dmitry A.Kazakov" wrote in message news:aki1tq$1ij38n$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de... > could still hang up. (2) How to define it in a portable way (= in language > terms)? > >