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: a07f3367d7,e51f94f876618e37 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.180.99.163 with SMTP id er3mr864577wib.2.1353057911125; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:25:11 -0800 (PST) Path: q13ni312958wii.0!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!216.40.29.245.MISMATCH!novia!news-hub.siol.net!news1.t-com.hr!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Question[s] about aliased extended return. Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:44:15 +0100 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <9bbd99bd-f953-434d-b3c8-6e8a6d5c7dfd@googlegroups.com> <77906f56-8ea0-4d87-8ace-4db1172958cd@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: aWaWeUaBdaj2Zzc04J1v5A.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.02 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-11-09T22:44:15+01:00 List-Id: Le Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:53:13 +0100, a =C3=A9crit= : > In either case, I'm always of the opinion that the 'thin' binding shou= ld = > match the API and just change types (pointers to arrays, etc), and the= = > 'thick' binding should change the structure (procedures to functions, = = > return codes to exceptions, etc). > > -ab Just out of curiosity, for a thin binding, would reuse the names used in= = the API or would you change names only in a tick binding? (most of times= , = I feel API names are not nice to read). -- = =E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1] =E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.= =E2=80=9D [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers= ity