James Carlson wrote: > Richard Lowe writes: [snip] > I was referring to moving strings to constant sections where possible > and perhaps investigating command performance. > > I agree that spreading ksh's private stdio replacement around requires > a much more substantial conversation, and I'm mostly opposed to it.
Could you please explain why you are opposed to it (note that I was thinking about using "sfio" (and other things), not the libast stdio wrappers (which are (right now) only needed for things like making an application/tool/etc. work as ksh93 plugin (or allow easy plug&&play porting of applications overr to "sfio")) ? > (If it's generally useful, then it belongs in libc, not as an outboard > motor.) Why (again I am thinking more about the stack/list/queue/tree/etc. infratructure and sfio (these are the major items of libast)) ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
