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: 103376,587d325bc9d6f927 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: emery@grebyn.com (David Emery) Subject: Re: ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES, Forest, POSIX Date: 1996/03/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 142746597 references: organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , scott@plato.ds.boeing.com wrote: > The question of 'getenv' is obviously easy to solve > by making the direct call to the unix you happen to be compiling > on TODAY. What about those other non-standard unix calls > like 'getwd' -- all those that whenever I try to compile C code > from SunOS to SOlaris I hit. > > That was why the POSIX interface seems to be the correct abstraction. > > I am somewhat worried also about the Forest copywrite restrictions.. > . but am more worried about the 'thick' binding that Forest provides. > I can't look at the POSIX manual, and write Ada code. I have to look at > say Forest, and see how (syntax) they let me access that code. > > One answer would be to get Ada.POSIX to do it .. then place it into > the language standard, and push the burdon onto ada compilers to > provide portability.. > The ada.command_line is a start at this.. > > -scott I'm very confused about what you need to write code that is not provided by the POSIX standard. Certainly the package specifications are an incomplete specification of the interface, but that's no surprise, for POSIX or anything else... Do you not have a copy of IEEE Std 1003.5? dave