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: 2002-08-29 12:15:46 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!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:17:59 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-180.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1030627094 4042 136.170.200.180 (29 Aug 2002 13:18:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2002 13:18:14 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:28572 Date: 2002-08-29T13:18:14+00:00 List-Id: Yes, I understand that there are potential issues as to what exactly happens from one OS to another and I understand that there are dangers in its use because its behavior can't necessarily deal with everything cleanly or do what you would want it to do under the circumstances. But note that a) Windows does provide an OS call to abort the process and b) I said the following: > > 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 (In other words, you could have it make monkeys fly out of your nose, but a sane person would expect it to call the OS provided "abort" procedure and do whatever that does.) Just because there is no absolutely safe or absolutely portable or absolutely consistent way of doing something in Ada, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. A complaint that a lot of C programmers have about Ada is that it keeps stoping them from doing what they want to do. Sometimes that is a good thing, but sometimes its just plain stubbornness on the part of Ada insisting that because an answer isn't "perfect" that it won't provide one that is "good enough". Providing a portable interface to what ANSI C calls "abort();" (and similar...) doesn't sound like something that should be avoided just because it might be misused or that the results might not be consistent across all platforms. 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:akkrtr$1jg0vq$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de... > > Consider Windows. To kill a process, does not mean that all DLLs and all > non-standard drivers it used get notified. Which also means that even if > you have killed a process the system is not brought to the state it had > before the process start. Yes, you can define a procedure Kill_The_Process > but you cannot specifiy what this procedure does! Which resources will be > freed? Will they available after procedure completion? What about access > rights? So the single thing which will be portable is the name of the > procedure. (:-)) >