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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.78.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 00:54:49 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.vv0clng6ule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <op.vvz2jdp0ule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <4ddc33be$0$6547$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eKwzOZEoYNmUIKtjz8NWow.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19429
Date: 2011-05-25T00:54:49+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Wed, 25 May 2011 00:39:58 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  =

<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a =C3=A9crit:
> - 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 socket=
s,  =

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=E2=80=99es=
t pas pour  =

les chiens.
=E2=80=9C c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ =E2=80=
=9D [Anonymous]