At 10:05 PM 2/15/00 -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>At 9:21 PM -0500 2/15/2000, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> >Good. So, it does seem to be working. I do really wish we could do
> >read/write, but Dan Sugalski tells me that would involve XS work,
> >and I'm not up to that, especially since I don't have VMS access.
> >I suppose I'll leave that as an exercise for someone with the
> >appropriate tools and motivation.
>
>There's probably a reason this hasn't been done before, although I don't
>know Dan's reasoning specifically.
Tuits. First there was that tuit blight in Bolivia, then the tarrifs
started getting hiked and, well, they're hard to find these days. :-)
>There are 4 different access modes and about half a dozen different
>logical name tables, plus various attributes on the logical names, such as
>whether they can function as device names or whether their translations
>can themselves be logical names.
>
>It's one thing to ask for the translation of a logical name that exists,
>but there's a greater level of complexity in creating a new one since you
>have to decide what defaults you want for modes, tables, and attributes,
>consider how what you do might affect other processes, what privileges
>would be required, and so on. Yes, this is best left to someone who wants
>to think through all that for VMS.
A full-blown logical/logical table manipulation module's been on the
drawing boards for ages, but it's not ever gotten further than that, I
think. At some point, when VMS::Logical's actually *done* (yeah, right...
:) we can wedge in a check at BEGIN time for it and enable advanced
features if it exists.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
