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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Home-made bingings or Florist?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:50:01 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ov1hvj$1an8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <oussh3$1b1r$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edFHTOfx8phAphItWrZ8cQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49034
Date: 2017-11-21T17:50:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Victor Porton wrote:

> What would you recommend for a program which needs to bind some small
> subset of Posix functions: Florist or my own bindings of a few functions
> using Import aspect or pragma?
> 
> The bound functions are currently intended ONLY for spawning subprocesses
> with given stdin and receiving the subprocess stdout. I hope otherwise
> stay in standard Ada for this project, without using more Posix bindings,
> but the real requests may vary in the future.
> 
> I use Ada2012.

I think I should bind myself. My program would then be more likely to work 
on a system with partial POSIX support (e.g. Windows), because I bind only 
these POSIX functions which are necessary for my program.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org