Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?

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

Le Wed, 25 May 2011 00:39:58 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> - if Ada was to standardize a binding, then that's new.
>    Something standard that is not about an abstraction,
That's about abstraction, otherwise socket could be defined atop of Ada  
streams (defining pipes over Ada streams, would be OK as an example, but  
defining sockets above Ada streams, would not).

>    but
>    rather about including some historic incident like BSD
>    sockets, in the language description.
Where do you think Unicode (now partially supported by Ada) is rooted ?  
Answer : one of the topmost code page at sometime.

> - it seems completely sufficient to agree, outside the standard,
>    on an API that can be used with any Ada compiler.  No
>    standardization  is needed at all.
OK. Let say it is not required, so "not" may be an option. But to answer  
the topic, you should now give an answer to why this should not. If  
"don't" is an option, "do" is still an option too.

> - Wait. We *do* have Ada Posix binding with an ISO number; since
>    Posix sockets do the trick, there is no need to add them to Ada.
Bringing all of POSIX just to get sockets, is too heavy. And sockets can  
live without POSIX (in some extent, even POSIX could live without sockets,  
which is not a major part of this standard, as far as I understand it).


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.
“ c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ ” [Anonymous]