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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d608a55f7b2e640
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Call for ACE participation
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <dewar.845506966@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189963389
references: <1996Oct8.194417.16693@ocsystems.com> <1996Oct15.161554.1@eisner>
 <dewar.845433836@merv> <1996Oct16.112853.1@eisner>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry said

"Yes, I certainly want thin bindings in many cases, but I would think of
a binding which mirrored OS calls but described them with different
derived numeric types for "window number" and "command number" as
still being "thin".  I have to do as much work to use it, but more
of my mistakes will be automatically detected."

Now I am puzzled, it is not the case that the thin bindings we are
talking about avoid the use of derived numeric types. In fact one
discussion we have had with respect to one of the bindings was
precisely whether or not to use derived types in a particular
situation, and we concluded that the attempt to use derived types
was flawed because it generated so many annoying and unhelpful
conversions.

The issue of when and when not to use derived types is an interesting
one, but I don't see it has anytyhing to do with bindings being thick
or thin!