comp.lang.ada Google Group

Using the Clipboard in Linux

2009-11-07T20:48:00Z

Greetings
I've written an application in windows that involves writing to the
clipboard. I'm trying to write a version to work in Linux (Ubuntu 9.04 is
what I'm developing on) and am struggling to get started with Florist.
Can anybody point me in the right direction of some good documentation.
I've scoured the web but not found anything just yet - if anybody can

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-07T14:33:55Z

will be
Ada-with-two-namespace
and [Ss][Tt][Rr][Ii][Nn][Gg]'s meaning is easily seen
from immediate context.

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-07T14:28:43Z

But the language meaning of "type" does not help with
the mentioned Message_Type_Type?
If I stubbornly follow your conventions as I understand them,
I'd have to write
procedure Something (Message_Type : in Message_Type_Type);
or
procedure Something (Message_Type : in Message_Types.Message_Type);

~ MOVIE CRITICS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2009-11-07T11:33:18Z

.
~~~^^^~~~
============================== ====================
============================== ====================
ENTER HERE:
>>> [link] <<<
============================== ====================

Re: Tricks Of The Trade: How To Compile Large Program On Two Very Different Compilers

2009-11-07T05:59:10Z

The general approach to this is to use separate files in separate
directories, and use compiler-specific techniques to select the right
directory at compile time.
This is easy with GNAT project files; other compilers have other ways
to do it.

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-07T05:57:37Z

Always possible.
<snip>
I don't see your point; that old discussion does _not_ propose using
<package>.<type> to resolve the ambiguity.

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-07T05:54:32Z

It's only "idiosyncratic" because it's new.
X is still a type name; this is actually a more "normal Ada way" of
resolving a name ambiguity.
In general, Ada does _not_ require exactly one meaning for one
identifier; that's what this discussion is all about.

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-07T05:49:59Z

Surely these are in different packages? Packages Containers, Lists,
and Sequences?
Then it is the package name that gives the domain; that works for me.
One reason to use "_Type" is precisely _because_ it means "Ada type";
there's no need to wonder about what it means.
So the case is not important; why did you introduce it?

Q: Ravenscar Guide

2009-11-07T01:59:44Z

Looking for the
"Guide for the use of the Ada Ravenscar Profile
in high integrity systems", ISO/IEC 24718,
I noticed that the German title on the quite official
DIN/Beuth site is different. It says "highly-integrated
systems" for "high integrity systems", in German:
"Leitfaden zu Verwendung des Ada Ravenscar Profils in

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-06T18:58:42Z

news:uskcsne3h.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
Or maybe you forgot!
The following is part of a old discusion to
which you contributed:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Local: Fri, Oct 5 2001 2:17 pm
<snip>
What about the following:
package XYZ is
type Car ...
procedure P (Car : in XYZ.Car ...

Final CfP, Ada-Europe 2010 EXTENDED submission deadline Nov 23

2009-11-06T15:28:35Z

Considering the requests of several potential contributors, and to give
all authors the same opportunity of further refining their submission,
the Conference and Program Chairs decided that the submission deadline
for regular papers, tutorials and workshops will be extended by 1 week
until Monday, November 23, 2009.

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-06T14:14:50Z

The convention differs in that none of the identifiers overlap.
For me, List and List_Type are just not different enough (the first
being a prefix of the second only in a very mechanical sense BTW):
I need to combine programs whose authors have followed
different naming conventions. In this case I have to take

Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

2009-11-06T13:27:36Z

In fact I am forced to use both because MI is not supported for concrete
types. I have MI only in the interfaces. There are generics to provide
implementations for the concrete types implementing those interfaces. It is
awfully complex, I hate it, but I know no other way to do this.
The problem of naming is only of a facet of the bigger mess. It is a

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

2009-11-06T12:38:43Z

For objects, this is how task components are matched
with acceptor parameters in John Barnes's book (not
the exact same thing as object names and type names,
for sure, but the prefix is present):
task body W is
A: T;
begin
accept Foo (A: T) do
W.A := A;
end Foo;
My guess is that it has to do with expectations:

Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

2009-11-06T12:19:10Z

On 5 nov, 15:09, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
You are more experienced than I am, so this may not sounds so much
interesting after-all
I was talking about the "_Mixin" design pattern, which is a suggested
way to do something like MI (Multiple Inheritance) with Ada. I think
you do not use it, as your talked about some personal success stories

comp.lang.ada Google Group

Using the Clipboard in Linux

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MOVIE CRITICS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Tricks Of The Trade: How To Compile Large Program On Two Very Different Compilers

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Q: Ravenscar Guide

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Final CfP, Ada-Europe 2010 EXTENDED submission deadline Nov 23

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

~ MOVIE CRITICS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~