On 15 May 2004 at 12:05, Arnould Nazarian wrote: (...) > Week end, so a little time to argue. > No it looks not logical to me. At least not with a mathematical view to > the question :)
(Taking out my slide rule) (...) > > So the keyword was designed that way. > > My memories of old readings are in accordance with what Rich says: an > EXECed or EXEC_Wed job is owned by the launcher. But it was changed I > understand why. Quite frankly, my memory mustn't be as good as yours. I don't remember this at all. > However if the scheme was still as in the beginning of QDOS, then under > SMSQ/E the way I would use it, Wolfgang, would be to have a child SBASIC > somewhere, possibly in a button and certainly on a hotkey, possibly with > the simple #0 open (SBASIC 1) only to lauch jobs to be EXECed. And that > launcher SBASIC job would always be there, like the HOTKEY job for example. OK, so that's a different way of using the machine. Why not? But I don't agree with you: I don't just want a "launcher" SBASIC. I want and have a "normal" SBASIC daughter job which I use for everything SBASICcy, launching programs, general keyboard entry for a quick command and, especially, developping and running programs. Why not do that in job 0? Simple. I often develop programs. Generally, I program pretty badly. Thus, my programs crash during development (regularly and often, I'm afraid). Sometimes they crash so badly that the only way out is to kill the job. But you can't kill job 0. Hence I do everything in another SBASIC which I can kill if need be. So I don't want to have a special program just to launch jobs. That would take too many system resources for just one purpose. > But as George reminds us (and I also remember this from old readings) in > assembler it is very easy to change the owner of an already launched > job, from inside or outside of that job. It is the matter of changing > the value of 1 btye somewhere in memory, certainly in supervisor mode. > > Why not a new keyword to give that possibility also to SBASIC programmers? Because I don't know what happens to a job if you change its owner. Nor do I know what happens to the old owner and/or the new owner. Probably nothing, but it's a risk I wouldn't want to take (on a system wide level). There is no OS facility to do that change safely. I'm pretty sure many people on this list can knock up a small Sbasic extension that chnages a job's owner and make it generally available. For something like this to be included in the OS itself, it should be done only after making sure that there will be no unforeseen consequences.... Or am I being too cautious and conservative? > I am quite sure that this is the kind of flexibility that few, if any, > other multitasking OSes allow. Umm, for good reason? Wolfgang ---------------------------------------- www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
