At 02:18 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From a language perspective, I have a scheme to allow us to yank all the
> > cruft (sockets, shm, messages, localtime...) out into separate libraries,
> > yet pull them in on demand without needing a use.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From a language perspective, I have a scheme to allow us to yank all the
> cruft (sockets, shm, messages, localtime...) out into separate libraries,
> yet pull them in on demand without needing a use.
a la dbmopen in perl5?
--
Piers
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:25:52AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:16:33AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > I'd actually like to see some work on the shared memory and IPC stuff on
> > the language list--it'd be nice to have them in as mostly-primitives,
> > though in a m
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:16:33AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> I'd actually like to see some work on the shared memory and IPC stuff on
> the language list--it'd be nice to have them in as mostly-primitives,
> though in a more platform-neutral way.
"mostly-primitives" sounds like a fudge. L
At 01:02 PM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of
> the
> > core entirely)
>
>Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then.
Damn straight. Dump the boiling oil! :)
>O
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of the
> core entirely)
Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then. On the other hand, there is
a lot of rubbish that *can* go out of core; I'd like to see core being
