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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,24a59fbc07128ff8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-09 06:25:52 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: rename missing in Text_IO Date: 09 May 2001 09:10:05 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: <9d6rbl$6vs$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9d8rk2$sgg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 989414738 15483 128.183.220.71 (9 May 2001 13:25:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 May 2001 13:25:38 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6 Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7361 Date: 2001-05-09T13:25:38+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" writes: > Since the discussion started concerning Win32ada simply having way too many > types and way too much C-ish feeling to the parameter lists, etc., my > original idea was to put a relatively simple layer on top of Win32ada. Just > enough so that when a string was called for, you used an Ada string - not > some 2nd or 3rd layer subtype of a pointer to a char - or other equally > unfriendly examples. I wouldn't want to consolidate multiple calls into > single calls or significantly change anything about the interface - so far > as it could be avoided. Just Ada-ize what one sees when one uses the > Win32api. (Some compromises are in order - you'd want to change all the > numeric return statuses into something more Ada-ish like enumerations. > Again, its a question of where does one stop?) That was the original philosophy of Windex. I may have gone beyond that some in developing whole new controls. > To that end, I'd think that Claw exceeds the spec. Claw is a > perfectly fine tool and one might be quite happy to develop on top > of it. I'd think that there would remain times when one would simply > want to get at a single Win32api call without any other layers of > abstraction beyond making the thing not quite so agonizing to use > from an Ada perspective. It would be interesting to hear which parts of Claw you think are "too thick". My nomination for that category is its use of a hidden task to serialize access to the GUI. On the other hand, I have not yet succeeded in building a multi-tasking Windex app, so I can't really complain! > Claw may be a better answer for overall development, but I was kind > of thinking along the lines of something that would be freely > available as a blanket over the Win32ada binding. Sort of a "binding > to a binding". (Now we could start the GPL vs LGPL vs GMGPL debate > along a whole new thread! :-) Windex is _not_ built on top of the Win32Ada binding, and neither is Claw. Part of the reason is licensing; the Win32Ada binding is actually copyright by Microsoft, since it was built by automatic translation from their C source. It is _not_ "freely distributable"; the license terms state that you must own a Microsoft development environment to use Win32Ada. Windex is GMGPL. The other part of the reason is that there is lots of stuff in Win32 that should not be used; either because it is superceded by other parts of Win32, or there is a better Ada way. I haven't worked on Windex in quite a while. I'll probably make another release when GNAT 3.14p comes out, but I don't anticipate much beyond that. I just don't seem to have the urge to write Win32 apps any more; I may do something for my latest toy, a Palm handheld. -- -- Stephe