Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> writes:
>>Yes, I do. I it to lock EVERYTHING. Maybe you want to get fancy and give
>>mhlock
>>options for partial locking capabilities, but there ought to be a way to lock
>>EVERYTHING. Indeed I would vote for EVERYTHING to be the default. I want to
>>write scripts and be oblivious as possible to locking issues.
>
>Hrm. So, let me see if I understand.
>
>You want a program to lock everything so you can mess around with nmh
>internals with non-nmh programs.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> Okay, I can understand that.
>
>But then you say (in another message) that you want nmh programs to not
>deadlock under our hypothetical nmhlock program
If I said something that amounted to that, it's not what I meant. I don't know
what I might have said that led you to believe that's what I meant. Which is not
to say that, in my confusion, I said nothing that amounted to that.
I admit, though, that when I first suggested that nmh locking be brought out to
an external program, I thought that nmh locking was much, much simpler than it
actually is. Had I known how complex nmh locking is (multiple interacting locks
etc), I probably would never have made the suggestion.
I also admit that I don't understand why nmh locking has to be so complicated,
but I leave that issue to my betters.
Norman Shapiro
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
