Re: adasockets and adatypes

From: "David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Subject: Re: adasockets and adatypes
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:53:04 -0500
Date: 2001-09-04T10:53:04-05:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.999618666.14306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1v6l7.3307$4z.6132@www.newsranger.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: adasockets and adatypes

> In article <mailman.999615244.13142.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, David C.
Hoos
> says...
> >This is simply not so. If the record component types have user-defined
> >endianness-independent stream attributes, then the data will have the
>
> How does one do this for language-defined types? Every Ada compiler I've
tried
> it on (including gnat 3.13p just now) only allows one to redefine the IO
> attributes in the same declaration section in which the type is declared.

One can't.  That's why when stream format is important, one should define
his own
types -- although I've never found a reason not to use the language-defined
type
String -- since I've only dealt with machines in which the sizes of
characters
and stream elements have been identical -- i.e., 8.

>
> If you only have 2 implementations to get talking, it is fairly easy to
massage
> one end until it talks like the other. That isn't the same thing as true
> portability.
I agree. one should define what the stream should look like from the
beginning.
For example, for Annex E, GNAT uses the XDR format defined by Sun.
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>