On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own IO subsystem,
can't we fake it ourselves?
--
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, the
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
SC> Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own
SC> IO subsystem, can't we fak
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> now what bothers me is that all those calls are in section 3 and are no
> section 2 system calls. maybe it is faked with threads but i haven't
> found any support for that notion. if so, i wonder if we can actually
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it
> works. Might not be as efficient as full kernel support for async
> I/O, but it'll do. At least there's some overlap. (You can get
> better device request or
> "TH" == Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TH> I can't see any reference to threads in the Solaris manual pages
TH> either. Certainly Unixware does:
TH> I thought that using threads was the standard SVR4 implementation
TH> but maybe Solaris has moved away from that.
well, my q
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:24:05AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> well, my question then is how does solaris do it? it can't be done with
> user level libs alone. what system calls does it use? undocumented ones
> perhaps with the libs as the public api?
> i finally found how solaris does its AIO un
At 08:59 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it
> > works. Might not be as efficient as full kernel support for async
> > I/O, but it'll do. At least there'
At 08:31 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
>
>Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own IO
>subsystem, can't we fake it ourselves?
If we w
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:37 AM 9/27/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >Perl should adopt scheme-like symbols, both at the language level
> >and at the internals level.
>
> The explanation of this isn't that clear for me. (I have no scheme
> experience at all)
Dave Storrs wrote:
> It isn't terribly clear to me either
Well, he does give a couple references that would clear it up.
X11 Atoms are well documented.
> saying is that you can qs() a method name, get a "thingie" out, store the
> thingine in a scalar, and then that scalar becomes a direct portal
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:07:19PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Dan was right to think of this as a C enum equivalent. The only real
> differences being that you don't have a chance to define the integer
> mapping and that the printable identity of the symbol is remembered by
> the run-time.
I don't y
> "RA" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Michael Maraist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suggested this a while ago, and the response was that automatically
>> writing files is a security risk. You should extend your RFC to
>> describe a caching directory or configuration.
RA
Chaim Frenkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RA> This will be completely impossible to implement in some installation
> RA> environments, such as AFS or read-only remote NFS mounts. I really
> RA> don't like software that tries to play dynam
13 matches
Mail list logo
