Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:15:11 +0200, Peter C. Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>  
a écrit:
> It's not that silly.
>
> In order to talk sensibly about files the standard needs to define a  
> model of "file" and, in this case even "file system." This needs to be a  
> model that will be applicable to the widest range of platforms possible.  
> Such is the nature of a standard. Thus the standard model of "file" and  
> "file system" will be a simplified abstraction of the real thing on any  
> particular system. A portable program can only make use of that  
> simplified abstraction if it expects to remain portable.
> [etc]
You are going too far, turning the matter into something it was not. After  
that, your conclusions can be just wrong or can just apply to other  
matters, but the actual.

It was just about character set,  and that model exist in Ada (in a  
non‑homogeneous way, which seems a failure).

> What happens when such a program tries to create files with such names  
> on a system that doesn't support them?
What about Text I/O then ? “Surprisingly”, no body complained.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit