--- Begin Message ---
Adrian Hey wrote:
Keean and Lennart are just hiding the problem in a hypothetical
"operating system" which is simply assumed to be correct (it just
doesn't do any of the dangerous things that might otherwise be done).
Well, if think I'm not reading your postings then I think I can claim
you're not reading mine either. :)
You seem to be writing part of an operating system in Haskell.
In that case you are responsible for handling the devices correctly.
I'm trying to convince you that a TWI is not the right way.
Having a TWI will give you some security against multiple uses
of the same device, but it won't protect you against everything.
* What if I have another driver for the same device? They can't
share the TWI.
* What if I have two identical devices? They should not share the TWI.
I reiterate: not even device drivers written in C use TWIs.
(Well, at least not quality drivers. :))
You need a device framework that does the right thing for you.
And you have to write it yourself.
So, for interfacing to bad C libraries I see the need for a TWI.
But you are writing the device driver yourself. You have the chance
to get it right.
-- Lennart
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
