C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > However, my fundamental point remains: common things should be | > simple. | > | > I think we should be careful about the arguments we make. | | Agreed. My understanding was that it was the use of sockets itself | which you were objecting to.
I'm objecting to unconditional use of "sockets" because they might better handle the future. I think most of my objections are qualified :-) [...] | > | some introductory material on thread vs. socket issues that I could | > | read? | > | > They are not mutually exclusive, so I don't understand your point. | | I misunderstood your original objection - I thought sockets applied to | Axiom in any fashion was a problem. It sounds more like the way we | CURRENTLY do things isn't so good regardless of mechanism, and that's a | different sort of issue. Yes. | I'm surprised that this aspect of Axiom is | complex, so there are clearly some design issues I'm not taking into | account yet. Well, they are not outstandingly complex, but they do add complexity. When you try to port Axiom to say, ECL, SBCL, CLISP, etc. that added complexity becomes non-negligeable. Since, I've been doing that, I think I let my exasperation out. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
