Re: Ada-Win32 bindings

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:2d07e544-8e98-458c-894c-cdd898f29440@googlegroups.com...
...
>Alex, do what .you. think is best.  I am a strong believer in multiple 
>competing
>alternatives, producing a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest outcome.

For thicker bindings, that's probably good advice. For a low-level bindings, 
however, ones that aren't going to be very usable from Ada regardless of 
details, probably the best thing is to standardize on a single set and stick 
to it. The reason being that it is a a foundation that all of those thicker 
bindings are built on, and it's best if that's a portable solution that 
itself changes hardly ever.

(One could even argue that exposing low-level bindings at all just puts Ada 
in a bad light, since they're harder to use than in C, but provide no more 
safety. You need at least medium or better still thick bindings to make them 
usable in Ada and to provide that safety.)

                                                  Randy.