Re: Ada Annex E (Just curious :-)

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:

> Well, this is, of course, going to be implementation dependent. I could
> imagine a well designed compiler providing a well documented programming
> interface so that the embedded developer had to build some
> packages/subprograms & link with the compiler's runtime and - "then a
> miracle occurs" - and you're off and running with RPC's, etc.

No, as I said in another note, it's not implementation dependent.
The relevant interfaces are defined by the language, not by the
implementation.  If there are mistakes in the interface definition, I'd
like to hear about them.

>...Even something like having to build the communication interface
> underneath the compiler is still a matter of mucking about with the compiler
> to adapt it to your machine. This doesn't get done at no cost.

I would think the cost of writing comm software would be the same,
whether or not you use Annex E.

> I recall hearing that in Japan, it is considered rude to say that you can't
> do something or that something is impossible - so they say "It would be
> difficult" instead. I'm wondering if I'm saying that with the same meaning?
> :-)

Perhaps not as difficult as you imagined.  ;-)

- Bob