Re: Libraries written in Ada

[Thomas Lotze <thomas@thomas-lotze.de>]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:59:16 +0100, Martin Krischik wrote:

> Actually both. The common runtime consists of packages as well and every
> package may or may not have it's own mini runtime environment. There are
> pragma instructions to controll that i.E. "pragma Pure" says that a
> package has no runtime environment and does not use another package with a
> runtime environment.

And even though it is thus possible to have an Ada package which doesn't
need a runtime environment, it is always necessary to initialize one? Is
that what you meant by "it's not an optional extra" in one of your
earlier messages?

> Please Note: you are asking very low level questions. Normaly you don't
> need to worry about it. Ada as a package orientated language has it all
> build.

Sure, but I'd like to know what implications my choice of language has for
using the library I want to write before I lean back and feel happy about
leaving these details to the language.

> That's the normal way for static linking. It does have the advantage that
> the binder will bind and elaborate only the packages which are actually
> used.

Nice.

Thanks for your explanations so far. One thing I haven't thought about
asking yet: What does adafinal() normally do? Does it things like flushing
file buffers and closing files, or is it just about cleaning up memory?
So, if it is the last function called from main(), may it just as well be
omitted?

-- 
Viele Gr��e,
Thomas