friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/25/85)
In article <1709@sdcrdcf.UUCP> markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) writes: >In article <268@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) writes: >> How does it do with the following problem. Write a >>*general purpose* fixed length record file I/O subroutine package, >>which reads each record directly into the application's data >>structure. Each application must be able to perform I/O on *any* >>record structure desired simply by calling the appropriate >>routine with a reference to the data structure as an argument. >>The problem I see with implementing this in Pascal or Ada >>is that the I/O routines *cannot* know what type the argument >>is going to be since it can be *any* legal record or array type. > >This problem need to be specified a little more clearly, but as there are >only clearification involves only 2 solutions I will give both. > >1) If the user intends to only have one data type stored in each file. > then the problem is already solved by the standard packages > SEQUENTIAL_IO and DIRECT_IO specified in the Ada* LRM. > In this case the routines DO know the type of the argument. > These generic packages nedd to be instantiated use the > datatype as an argument before they can be used in a program. > I meant version #1. Actually what I wanted to know was can you *write* the SEQUENTIAL_IO package and DIRECT_IO package *in* Ada, and how would you do it? How would you declare the dummy arguments in the routines? BTW, what is meant by "instantiate to use the data type"? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (01/29/85)
[Sorry for burdening the net with this, but our Postmaster couldn't seem to find this person. This is an answer to a reply to one of my net postings which, come to think of it, may be of general interest.] : From: jans@mako (Jan Steinman) : To: usc-ecl.arpa:blarson%ecld@tektronix!uw-beaver! : Subject: Re: Pascal vs. C : : > I was going to send a flame, but forest fires don't fit over the net well. : > Ada is one of the two worst languages I have ever seen. : : You forgot to add, "in my opinion". Perhaps you can explain your opinion : better? Have you actually used the language, or is your opinion based on : "seeing" it? (whatever that is) : : I don't claim Ada is an end-all, and I'll certainly admit it has some : problems, but I still feel it fills a need. And regardless of what you or I : think, it will be used and will be a major force in computing. Whether one : likes it or not, there are gobs of money in it for those who bother to learn : and use it, instead of simply "flame throwing". : : > Care to guess what the other is? : : No, not really. : -- :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-161 (w)503/685-2843 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
jbn@wdl1.UUCP (01/30/85)
``Object-based methodology'' with respect to Ada? Ada is a good old Von Neumann procedural language, despite elaborate declarations.